On 9 May 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal handed down its judgment in the Groom v Maritime case. Following this, the Coastguard Agency has provided some guidance on whether volunteers can be workers.
This article provides detail on the case and the outcome, highlighting whether volunteer’s rights will be impacted as a result of this decision.
Mr Groom was volunteering as a coastal rescue officer for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Mr Groom’s employment was terminated with immediate effect following a disciplinary matter, which he then appealed. The appeal was rejected and Mr Groom then issued an employment tribunal claim because he was not afforded the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative during his disciplinary hearing. This is due to being viewed as a volunteer as opposed to an employee or worker.
In the first instance, it was held that Mr Groom was not a worker for the purposes of section 10 and section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. This section of the act allows employees and workers to be accompanied by a trade union representative.
The tribunal found the principles in South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson case applied to this case, stating ‘whilst a sense of public service might compel a Coastal Rescue Officer to continue to assist in an activity… there is no contractual right on the part of the respondent to require them to do so.’ The fact both parties believed the relationship to be voluntary at the start swayed the tribunal to find that was how the relationship should be labelled.
Mr Groom appealed the tribunal’s decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal explored the central issue, which was the legal effect of the documents and whether the employment tribunal were correct to rely on the South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v Grayson case.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the argument that volunteer agreements are ‘sui generis’ and that volunteers cannot be workers. It was necessary to examine the parties’ obligations/relationship, as opposed to the words in the contract itself. An important fact when reaching this decision was the fact Mr Groom had the right to remuneration.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal found a contract came into existence when Mr Groom attended an activity that afforded him the right to remuneration. Despite the word ‘volunteer’ being used throughout the relevant documents, this did not determine legal status. Mr Groom was therefore found to be a ‘limb (b) worker’ in the Uber v Aslam and Ors case, in certain circumstances. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal did not comment on the legal status of volunteers when undertaking ‘no-remuneration’ and instead left this open to be argued in future.
This is a key decision that will impact volunteer’s rights when providing their services to various organisations and charities in situations where a volunteer has the right to remuneration. This means that the same rights afforded to workers can apply in certain volunteer relationships and therefore have more protection under UK employment law.
For more information, please contact the employment team.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
