When is a volunteer a worker?
The Court of Appeal has recently considered whether a volunteer can qualify as a worker. In Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom, the Court confirmed that volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officers (CROs) could be classed as workers for particular periods in which they attend activities for which they are entitled to claim payment.
The judgment is an important reminder that the label “volunteer” is not determinative. Worker status can arise on an activity‑by‑activity basis where the practical arrangements amount to a wage/work bargain.
Having the status as a worker (rather than a self=employed person) is significant as it means that an individual is entitled to the national minimum wage, holiday pay, sick pay and protection from discrimination, amongst other things.
Background
Mr Groom had been a volunteer CRO since 1985. In 2020, following disciplinary proceedings, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) terminated his role. Mr Groom brought a tribunal claim. He argued that he had the statutory right to be accompanied at his appeal meeting, something available only to employees and) workers.
The tribunal found he was not a worker, primarily because the arrangement was described as voluntary. The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed, finding that a contract arose each time he undertook an activity for which remuneration was available. The MCA appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the MCA’s appeal and confirmed that Mr Groom was a worker during periods of paid activity. The key points were:
A contract arose for each paid activity. When a CRO attended an activity for which remuneration was available, there was a clear wage/work bargain: CROs provided services and the MCA provided pay. The Court considered it unrealistic to suggest there was no intention to create legal relations in those circumstances.
Worker status can exist without an ongoing obligation to accept work. Although CROs could decline call‑outs, once they attended, they were required to follow instructions and were entitled to pay. This was enough to establish mutuality of obligation for the period of attendance, even without an overarching contract between activities.
Whether payment was actually claimed was irrelevant. What mattered was the right to payment. The Court highlighted that the structure for claiming and processing remuneration was formal and consistent with a worker relationship.
Comment
This judgment confirms that organisations cannot rely solely on the term “volunteer” to avoid worker rights. Where volunteers have a structured entitlement to remuneration and must follow instructions during activities, worker status may arise during those discrete periods. With that comes access to statutory protections - for example, the right to be accompanied at disciplinary or appeal hearings.
Organisations using volunteers should review how their arrangements operate in practice. Even optional payment can create a wage/work bargain if coupled with control and formal processes.
