Volunteer is a worker: Groom v Maritime & Coastguard Agency – EAT decision
Associate Solicitor Haylee Chambers gives an overview of the EAT decision on the case of Groom v Maritime & Coastguard Agency and what this means for other volunteers who receive remunerations for their work.
The Claimant was a volunteer in the Coastal Rescue Service as a Coastal Rescue Officer (“CRO”). There was a ‘Volunteer Handbook’ which describes the relationship as a “voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists.” The Volunteer Commitment states “Membership of the CRS is entirely voluntary. In formal terms this means there is no “mutuality of obligation” between CROs and the MCA”. The Code of Conduct says that “There is no minimum response commitment by our volunteers, and they are not paid.” However, there was a payment clause entitling volunteers to claim payment for certain activities if they wished, although it stated some CROs choose not to for “minor costs caused by your volunteering, and to compensate for any disruption to your personal life and employment and for unsocial hours callouts”. Payslips were received itemising hourly remuneration and expenses and a P60 was issued at the end of the year.
In 2020, the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing and his membership was terminated with immediate effect. The Claimant was issued with a P45.
The Claimant brought forward a claim for refusal to permit the Claimant to be accompanied by a trade union representative at the disciplinary hearing contrary to s10/11 Employment Relations Act 1999. In order to bring such a claim, the Claimant would need to be a worker.
At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that the Claimant was not a worker. They stated that there was no contract at all between the parties, there was no automatic right to remuneration for any activities and many CROs never claim and there are a number of activities for which there is no remuneration.
The Claimant then decided to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”).
The EAT found that the Tribunal had made a mistake in the construction of the documents, as there plainly was a contract which came into existence when the Claimant provided services at an activity in respect of which there had been a promise of remuneration.
The EAT found that the phrase “two-way commitment” in the Volunteer Handbook indicated some form of mutual obligation. The Code of Conduct says that a CRO must attend specified levels of training and must maintain a reasonable level of incident attendance. Further, CROs are entitled to be remunerated for a wide range of activities and the fact that they have to claim for them or that many do not claim for them is irrelevant. The important difference between remuneration and expenses was explored by the EAT. In this case, it was clearly remuneration for which there was an argument for worker status.
The decision was made that the Claimant was a worker when he attended activities in respect of which he was entitled to remuneration. However, it remitted the question as to whether the Claimant was a worker in respect of activities which did not attract remuneration.
However, please note, the other factors for worker status; personal service and that the MCA was not a client or customer of a business carried on by the Claimant were not in dispute.
The previous string of similar cases did not support worker status for volunteers; therefore, this is a helpful judgment for any volunteers who are paid remuneration for some activities (provided they also meet the other factors set out above).
For more information about employment law including settlement agreements, unfair dismissal and protective awards, get in touch with a member of our team on 033 3344 9600 or email [email protected].
Author: Haylee Chambers, employment.
