In a significant decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided that a volunteer can be classified as a worker if they are entitled to remuneration for their activities. This ruling emerged from a case Groom v Maritime & Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 71.
The Case Background
Mr. Martin served as a volunteer for the Coastal Rescue Service (CRS), an organization that operates with around 3500 volunteers. These volunteers are guided by a handbook that emphasizes the voluntary nature of their roles while setting expectations such as attending training sessions and maintaining a reasonable level of incident attendance. For specific activities, volunteers could claim reimbursement for minor costs associated with their service, including disruptions to personal life, employment, and for attending unsocial hours call outs.
Mr. Martin challenged the denial of trade union representation at a disciplinary hearing, arguing that he qualified as a worker.
Initial Tribunal Decision
Initially, the tribunal decided that Mr. Martin was not a worker, citing the absence of a contract between him and the CRS. The tribunal emphasised that there was no automatic right to remuneration and noted that numerous volunteers did not claim their expenses. Consequently, the agreement between Mr. Martin and the CRS was deemed voluntary.
Mr. Martin subsequently appealed this decision.
The EAT’s Ruling
Upon appeal, the EAT overturned the tribunal’s decision. Notably, the EAT rejected the notion that a volunteer relationship is inherently unique. Instead, the tribunal highlighted the absence of a legal definition for “volunteer,” acknowledging that volunteer status can vary based on the agreement between the relevant parties.
The EAT found it immaterial that remuneration was not automatic or that other volunteers chose not to claim it. The critical point was that a contract formed at the point a volunteer had the right to receive remuneration for their attendance. Furthermore, volunteer attendance was regulated by a Code of Conduct, mandating minimum attendance at training and rescue incidents.
Conclusion and Implications
Both parties concurred that if an obligation was present, it pertained to personal service. As a result, the EAT designating Mr. Martin as a worker. Nonetheless, the EAT did not address whether Mr. Martin was considered a worker during unremunerated activities, leaving this issue unresolved.
This ruling illustrates the importance of the specific terms and conditions governing volunteer arrangements and their potential implications for employment rights.
For specific help and guidance on what this means for your business, please contact [email protected].
