Paid volunteer entitled to work status

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that Coastguard Rescue Officers are entitled to worker status, despite being described as volunteers in the relevant documentation. The key reason was that they could claim payment for some of the time spent “volunteering”.

This was a test case brought by Martin Groom, who was a CRO until his position was brought to an end in 2020. There are about 3000 CROs in the UK. They are described consistently as volunteers in the Volunteer Handbook issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which states that their role is “entirely voluntary”. However, it also confirms that they can submit monthly claims for payment for certain activities if they wish.

The employment tribunal dismissed Mr Groom’s claim, but this decision was reversed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in May 2024. It held that a contract came into existence each time he made himself available for an activity for which he was entitled to be paid and that his status while that contract subsisted was that of a “limb (b)” worker – ie a non-employee worker.

The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the MCA’s appeal. Its reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court’s well-known ruling in the Uber litigation, as well as a more recent decision (also from the Supreme Court) in a case involving football referees. In both these cases it was clear that an individual could have worker status in relation to a one-off arrangement, as long as the employer exercised a sufficient degree of control while they were working. This was despite the fact that the individual was under no obligation to accept any work offered.

In this case, the Volunteer Handbook demonstrated that the MCA did exercise the necessary degree of control. It said that Mr Groom had to undergo compulsory training and fulfil minimum attendance obligations set out in the Code of Conduct. The fact that he was described consistently as a volunteer did not alter this.

This case is different from the line of cases involving volunteers who are not entitled to be paid, but only to reimbursement of expenses, where as a general rule they are not entitled to claim worker status. But it does mean that organisations that do pay individuals who are described and treated as volunteers – even at a relatively modest rate – will need to review their arrangements.

In this case, Mr Groom was not seeking any compensation, and in any case was paid above the National Minimum Wage. However, it is clear that workers in a similar position are entitled to the full range of rights available to non-employee workers, including holiday pay and the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. 
.

Our content explained