A judgment has been handed down by the Court of Appeal in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom case, where a ‘volunteer’ station officer at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) was found to be a worker, not a volunteer, and thus entitled to rights that workers would receive.
This article explores a landmark Court of Appeal decision that clarifies when a ‘volunteer’ may in fact be considered a worker, and the significant implications this has for organisations relying on volunteer support.
In the original Employment Tribunal case, Mr Groom, who was a ‘volunteer’ with the MCA since 1985, was invited to a disciplinary hearing, after which his membership of the MCA was terminated with immediate effect. Mr Groom was prevented from being accompanied to this meeting, a right afforded to workers under Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999.
Mr Groom was unpaid in his position, and the terms of his voluntary service were governed by a volunteer handbook. Said handbook explicitly stated that there was no 'mutuality of obligation' between volunteers and the MCA. The handbook stated that volunteers must oblige by a code of conduct, part of which mandated that the volunteers must “maintain a reasonable level of incident attendance”.
Notably, a section titled ‘Payment’ allowed volunteers to submit claims for monthly payments intended to reimburse volunteers for “minor costs caused by your volunteering, and to compensate for any disruption to your personal life and employment and for unsocial hours callouts”.
In the initial Employment Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal found that Mr Groom was not considered a worker due to the lack of a contract between himself and the MCA. The tribunal said that because the volunteer handbook, which governed Mr Groom’s role, described the arrangement as voluntary, and said volunteers received no automatic renumeration for the expenses they were able to claim, there appeared to be a “genuinely voluntary relationship”. Mr Groom therefore was not considered a worker and therefore did not have the automatic right to be accompanied to the disciplinary meeting.
Mr Groom appealed this decision on the following grounds:
At the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), ground 3 of the appeal was dismissed, however the EAT upheld elements of the claimant’s appeal in relation to grounds 1 and 2. With regards to payment, the EAT found that there were only very limited circumstances where renumeration would not be payable, and for the majority of Mr Groom’s work with the MCA, expenses for his time spent undertaking activities could be claimed.
It was irrelevant that Mr Groom or other ‘volunteers’ needed to request said reimbursement; the facts of the matter were that Mr Groom was required, under the handbook, to undertake a certain amount of the work for which he was entitled to claim a fixed hourly rate. The EAT identified this as, effectively, renumeration for work done, or to put it more simply, ‘pay due for a day’s work’. The EAT also found that the Employment Tribunal’s interpretation of the South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson case was flawed.
On this basis, the appeal was upheld, and the decision was therefore reversed. The MCA was found to have impinged on Mr Groom’s rights in not allowing him to be accompanied in the disciplinary hearing. In response to the EAT’s ruling, the MCA sought an appeal to the Court of Appeal; however, they were unsuccessful, with the Court of Appeal upholding the EAT’s ruling.
Any organisation engaging with volunteers should be aware of the precedent created by this case, and should keep any volunteer arrangements under review; particularly if volunteers can claim 'expenses' for their time and labour.
Simply, itemised expenses such as mileage, food costs, or miscellaneous purchases will likely not be an indication of worker status. However be aware if your volunteers can claim back an hourly rate simply for their time or the inconvenience it has had on their personal life. In accordance with this recent judgment, such payments could well be construed as renumeration, and indicate the presence of a worker relationship. The existence of a worker relationship could have a significant impact on an organisation in particular in respect of National Minimum Wage, and holiday pay.
Should you require any assistance, or further information, please contact our employment team.
