The Legal Status of Volunteers: Lessons from Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom

Background

Mr Groom (the Claimant) volunteered as a Coastguard Rescue Officer on the Isle of Wight for more than 30 years and was a member of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). In 2020, Mr Groom was invited to a disciplinary hearing following allegations of misconduct. He was subsequently removed from his role, had his MCA membership terminated, and a P45 was issued.

Mr Groom brought claims in the Employment Tribunal against the MCA, claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed and that he should have been entitled to bring a union representative to accompany him at his disciplinary hearing. His claim for unfair dismissal was struck out as it was presented out of time.

The MCA argued that they denied Mr Groom representation because he was not a worker under s13(1)(a) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, commonly referred to as a “Limb (b)” worker.

The MCA produced three documents as evidence: the Volunteer Handbook, a Code of Conduct, and a Remuneration Document. The Volunteer Handbook stated that Coastguard Rescue Officers were volunteers, and it is a “voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists”. The Volunteer Handbook also stated that Coastguard Rescue Officers had to follow the rules in the Code of Conduct (including carrying out activities with care and attention to all instructions) and stated that they could submit monthly payment claims to cover “minor costs” incurred from volunteering and to compensate for disruption to their personal lives for unsocial hours callouts. The Remuneration Document explained the process of claiming for remuneration, making it clear that Coastguard Rescue Officers were not obliged to claim. The hourly rate remuneration was not less than minimum wage.

The Employment Tribunal held that Mr Groom was not a worker because there was no contract between him and the MCA for him to provide work or services to them. They also pointed to the fact that there was no automatic remuneration for Coastguard Rescue Officers.

Mr Groom appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal who overturned this decision. The EAT concluded that Mr Groom was a worker when he undertook an activity for the MCA because he received payment for certain activities and there was a contractual obligation to perform work or services.

The MCA appealed, and the case went to the Court of Appeal, who dismissed MCA’s appeal and confirmed that Mr Groom and other Coastguard Rescue Officers are workers under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and not volunteers. The Court of Appeal held that there was a contractual relationship despite the “volunteer” label because they could receive remuneration, noting: “the payment of remuneration will in most cases be a strong indication both of an intention to create legal relations and, where the remuneration is to be regarded as consideration for the carrying out of the work, for the existence of a contract.” (paragraph 56).

The Court of Appeal’s judgment has a broad impact. There are approximately 3,100 Coastguard Rescue Officers who are now recognised as workers and have additional statutory protections afforded to them. In addition, the decision is likely to impact other organisations that utilise voluntary roles where they receive remuneration. Merely labelling an individual as a volunteer does not necessarily mean that they are not protected by employment legislation. It also leaves open whether volunteers who receive no remuneration would amount to worker status, which will inevitably leave some organisations feeling uneasy.