When might a volunteer be classed as a worker?

In a recent case - Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency - in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), a volunteer was held to be a worker when attending certain activities for which they were entitled to remuneration.

Jill Donabie, employment partner in our education team, discusses the case.

What is the definition of ‘worker’?

Section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) sets out the definition of a worker as an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment or any other contract whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract. 

The facts

The claimant was a volunteer for the Coastal Rescue Service (CRS). The claimant had not been permitted to be accompanied by a trade union representative at a disciplinary hearing, and as a result brought a claim arguing that he was a worker under S.230(3)(b) ERA.

CRS’ volunteer handbook referred to the voluntary nature of the appointment as a volunteer, and set out expectations of volunteers, which included attending training and maintaining “a reasonable level of incident attendance”. 

Volunteers could claim costs on certain activities to cover minor costs caused by their volunteering and to compensate for any disruption to their personal life and employment and for unsocial hours call-outs.

The Employment Tribunal decision

The Employment Tribunal concluded that the claimant was not a worker because there was no contract between him and CRS and held that the agreement between the two parties was voluntary. 

Part of the basis for this finding was that there was no automatic right to remuneration and many volunteers did not claim it. The claimant appealed to the EAT.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal decision

On appeal, the EAT stated that there is no definition of “volunteer”, and such status differs depending on the arrangement between parties.

The EAT further held that the fact sums were not paid automatically and that some volunteers did not claim them was irrelevant in this instance. 

The EAT concluded that a contract came into existence when the claimant attended the relevant activity for which they had right to remuneration. 

Such attendance was governed by a Code of Conduct which set minimum levels of attendance at training and rescue incidents, and therefore gave rise to a contract for the provision of services. The parties agreed that the obligation was for personal service.

This therefore meant that the EAT held the claimant to be a worker during these remunerated activities.

What can we learn from this case?

The question stands as to whether the claimant was a worker when undergoing unremunerated activities.

This case acts as a further reminder that organisations using the services of volunteers need to be careful how those arrangements are managed in practice as there is the risk that worker status can arise.

For advice on employment law, please contact Jill using [email protected] or 0191 211 7933.