Can a volunteer be a worker in relation to the activities they personally perform?
The Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency held that this was the case.
Background to the case
Mr Groom was a Coastal Rescue Officer, who worked under a volunteer agreement for the Respondent. His handbook described his membership of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as ‘entirely voluntary’.
Mr Groom carried out certain activities for no payment. However, he was entitled to payment for various other activities. This included monthly claims to cover minor costs, disruption to personal life and employment and considering unsocial hours call outs. Payslips were received itemising hourly remuneration and expenses. A P60 was also issued at the end of each tax year.
Following a disciplinary hearing, Mr Groom’s membership with the Respondent was terminated and he was dismissed. He was issued with a P45. He subsequently brought a claim before an employment tribunal contending that the Respondent was in breach of the requirement to permit him to be accompanied by a trade union representative at a disciplinary hearing. Only employees and workers have this right. To be classified as a worker, Mr Groom had to prove that he had a contract with the Respondent, under which he undertook to perform services personally.
The tribunal held that there was no contract between Mr Groom and the Respondent and therefore he was not considered to be a worker. Mr Groom appealed against this decision.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal decision
The appeal was permitted, with the Employment Appeal Tribunal finding that there is nothing in case law authority to support the argument that as a matter of law a volunteer provides their services on a non-contractual basis. Each case should therefore be examined on its own facts. Describing something as volunteering isn’t determinative.
It was held that:
- Mr Groom’s documentation clearly created a right to remuneration with respect to a variety of activities. It was irrelevant that he had to apply for the remuneration and other volunteers chose not to make claims for payment.
- A contract came into place every time he attended an activity in which there was a right to remuneration and that contract was for the provision of services. The Respondent’s Code of Conduct specified minimum levels of attendance at training and at incidents and their volunteers’ attendance was in keeping with the requirements set out in the Code.
There was no dispute in that Mr Groom met the other elements of the statutory test for worker status. For instance, he performed the work personally and the Respondent was not a client or customer of a business owned by Mr Groom.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that Mr Groom was a worker during the periods when he was undertaking an activity that promised payment.
How can Moore Barlow help
Schools may presume that if an individual is described as a ‘volunteer’, this would rule out a contractual relationship. However, this decision serves as a useful reminder that considering how an individual is labelled is not determinative. Status depends upon an individual analysis of the particular relationship under which an individual’s services are provided. We can help you with this.
Please contact any member of the Independent schools team to discuss how we can help you with Employment and HR advice.
