Volunteers being paid?

Groom v Maritime & Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 71

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) recently decided that a volunteer’s employment status could be that of a ‘worker’ if they have a right to be paid for their activities.

The Claimant was a volunteer in the Coastal Rescue Service (“CRS”). The relationship was governed by a volunteer handbook, describing the relationship as entirely voluntary. Volunteers were required to follow a Code of Conduct, which confirmed that volunteers could submit monthly payment claims for certain activities.

In 2020, he was invited to a disciplinary hearing, after which the relationship between the Claimant and CRS was terminated. Following a rejected appeal, the Claimant claimed that he had been refused his right to be accompanied by a trade union representative at the disciplinary hearing. He needed to be classified as a ‘worker’ under law to qualify for such a right. He claimed that, although described by CRS as a volunteer, he was in reality, a worker.

At the Employment Tribunal (the “ET”), his claim was dismissed on the grounds that there was, in essence, no contractual relationship between the parties, primarily because there was no “automatic” right to payment for any activity and many volunteers, in reality, made no such claim. Therefore, the Claimant could not be a worker.

The Claimant appealed this decision to the EAT, which upheld his appeal for the following reasons:

• There was a contract in place during the activities which attracted the right to remuneration. This was an important consideration in determining whether a contract existed, and it did not matter that many volunteers did not actually submit a claim for payment.
  
• Further, the CRS’ Code of Conduct, which outlined the nature and responsibilities of the volunteer roles, required that they “maintained a reasonable level of incident attendance”. As this attendance generated a right to remuneration, this was indicative of a contract arising and therefore the volunteer being a worker.
  
• Finally, while the only factor which suggested there was no contract was that of frequent use of the term “voluntary”, the definition of “‘volunteer’ was not a term of art” and each instance was to be decided on a holistic examination of all available documents.

In summary, the EAT decided that a contract existed when a volunteer attended an activity for which there was a right to claim payment. The Claimant was therefore a worker when carrying out those activities. One issue left explicitly as an open question was whether a volunteer was a worker when doing unpaid activities. As this question was not raised in this case, it is left open to be decided in a future case.

Businesses that use volunteers may want to consider their employment status and review their volunteer practices as a result of this decision, being mindful however that, in this decision, worker status was only established given the right to payment for certain activities.