Could your volunteers actually be employees?
With a recent court case exemplifying the fine line between volunteer and worker status, organisations should consider which activities might transcend the scope of the volunteer boundary – and whether individuals they class as volunteers would actually be viewed as such by a court or tribunal.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency v. Groom [2026]
The Court of Appeal has upheld an employment tribunal ruling that a volunteer coastguard with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) was a ‘worker’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996).
Broadly speaking, the question as to who gets employment rights in the UK is determined by distinguishing between three categories in the workforce:employees, ‘workers’, or the genuinely self- employed. The second category (‘worker’) is a broad test. It applies to those who contract to provide their own labour to an organisation, and where that contract is not at arms-length (i.e. for a ‘customer’ or ‘client’). On the margins, identifying the precise boundary for worker status can be tricky, but it is key. This is because ‘workers’ are entitled to key statutory rights such as National Minimum Wage, paid holiday, and whistleblowing protections.
Whilst the category of a volunteer is often too casual to be regarded as a worker, this is not always the case. The courts have previously pointed out that volunteer arrangements come in all shapes and sizes, with different legal implications.
Mr. Groom volunteered for the MCA as a Coastguard Rescue Officer. Despite having the status of a volunteer, he was able to claim remuneration for his time. He was also subject to a Code of Conduct and a Volunteer Handbook.
Mr. Groom was dismissed from his role with the MCA in 2020; he asked the MCA whether he could be accompanied to his appeal hearing against dismissal, but the MCA refused – and it was this claim (relating to the right to be accompanied at disciplinary meetings) that ultimately went forward. The employment tribunal later found that Mr. Groom was not a ‘worker’ entitled to bring that claim, and that there was no contractual obligation for him to provide work and services. This was, in turn, overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). It held that a worker contract arose for each activity which Mr. Groom attended and for which he was entitled to remuneration. The matter ultimately went to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the EAT’s decision that, when attending activities for which he was entitled to remuneration, Mr. Groom was a worker within the meaning of s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that, whilst an MCA volunteer is not obliged to attend a call-out (as confirmed in the MCA’s handbook), if volunteers do attend, they are entitled to claim remuneration. This, together with the contractual framework within which they worked, went beyond ‘genuine volunteer’ status found in other cases where only reasonable expenses can be claimed. The EAT therefore found that there is a contract each and every time a volunteer attends an MCA call-out. The Court of Appeal relied on the cases of Uber v. Aslam and Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v. HMRC to establish that a right to reject work did not preclude worker status.
What does this mean for organisations who rely on volunteers?
This case may have significant implications on any organisation that relies on volunteers, such as those in the charity sector. This is especially relevant for those ‘volunteers’ who are subject to detailed arrangements and policies around how they volunteer, and who are entitled to receive a form of compensation for their time (beyond basic expenses). It confirms that organisations cannot get around worker status by labelling individuals as volunteers or stating there is no contract in place. The court will look at the practical realities on the ground to establish the presence and nature of the contractual relationship.
What steps can organisations take to ensure compliance?
Organisations which rely on highly experienced, skilled volunteers should assess whether their ‘volunteers’ could in fact be workers in the opinion of a court or tribunal.
Looking to prepare and need a helping hand?
Get in touch and let our Employment specialists take it from here.
Please be advised that this is an update which we think may be of general interest to our wider client base. The insights are not intended to be exhaustive or targeted at specific sectors as such, and whilst we naturally take every care in putting our articles together, they should not be considered a substitute for obtaining proper legal advice on key issues which your business may face.