The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that a volunteer for the Coastguard Rescue Service (CRS) was a ‘worker’ when performing activities for which he was entitled to claim payment.
Mr Groom was a volunteer Coastal Rescue Officer (CRO) for the CRS and worked under a volunteer agreement. The handbook described membership of the Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) as ‘entirely voluntary’ and stated that the relationship between MCA and its volunteers was a ‘voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists.’
Volunteers were expected to follow the MCA code of conduct which set out what was expected, including attending specified levels of training and maintaining a reasonable level of incident attendance. It also permitted volunteers to submit monthly claims to cover minor costs and to compensate for disruption to personal life and employment.
Following a disciplinary hearing in 2020, the Mr Groom’s membership was terminated, and he was issued with a P45. He subsequently brought a claim in the Tribunal and argued that the MCA was in breach of the requirement to permit him to be accompanied by a trade union representative at a disciplinary hearing, a legal right under the Employment Rights Act 1996 which is granted only to employees and workers.
To bring such a claim, the Claimant would need to have been classed as a ‘worker’ and be able to demonstrate that he had a contract or other arrangement to undertake work or services personally.
At the preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that the Claimant was not a ‘worker’ as there was no contract between the parties, there was no automatic right to remuneration for any activities, many CROs never claim and there are a number of activities for which there is no remuneration. The Claimant appealed the decision and the case was brought before the EAT.
The EAT disagreed with the decision and found that a contract came into existence each time the Claimant attended an activity in respect of which there was a right to remuneration. In this case, it was clearly remuneration for which there was an argument for ‘worker’ status and the Code of Conduct further supported the existence of a contractual relationship.
James Roddy, Employment Tribunal & Employment Law Consultant comments:
“This decision is a significant development in the classification of volunteers. It underscores the necessity for organisations to clearly define the nature of their relationship with them and to ensure that policies and practices reflect the distinct relationship. If there is an expectation of payment, an organisation could inadvertently create a ‘worker’ relationship, entitling the individual to certain employment rights.”
This case highlights the importance of reviewing volunteer arrangements. EML can assist your organisation and make an assessment of worker status. If you would like further advice or support in this regard or have any other HR, Employment law or Health & Safety issues you would like to discuss, please call 01942 727 200 for a no obligation chat or email enquries@employeemanagement.co.uk.