Are your volunteers really volunteers? 

Many organisations have different categories of people who work for them. Examples of these categories include: 

Employees. These individuals are entitled to the full protection and benefits that employment law has to offer. 

Workers. Such people usually have a more casual relationship with the employer than employees. They have much more limited rights under employment law, though they do include the following: 

• The statutory minimum wage
• The right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative at grievance and disciplinary hearings
• Working time protection
• Holiday pay
• In certain cases, pension contributions

Self-employed. These individuals are those who are genuinely self-employed. They provide services to their organisation such as consultancy services for a particular project, and have very few protections.  

Volunteers. If the person is genuinely a volunteer, they also have very few rights under employment law. 

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal case has however demonstrated that employment law will step in to ensure that individuals, although they may be described by their organisations as being volunteers, gain the employment law protection they ought to have. 

Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2024] EAT 71 

In this case, Mr Groom from time to time provided volunteer services to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. He was described by the Agency as a volunteer, and was therefore not entitled, for example, to the national minimum wage, paid holiday or the right to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings.   

Mr Groom brought an employment tribunal claim against the Agency on the ground that he had been refused the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing. He claimed that, although the Agency described him as a volunteer, he was legally a “worker”.  

If, legally, Mr Groom had the status of a worker, then he would be entitled to the sort of benefits and legal protections listed above, including the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing.

The Agency had a volunteer handbook, which emphasised the voluntary aspect of those who undertook voluntary work for them. The volunteers however needed to undertake training and to maintain a reasonable level of attendance.   

Although not entitled to wages (as they were volunteers), the volunteers could claim minor costs, for example to compensate for the disruption to their personal life as well as to recognise that they attended call outs during unsociable hours. Such payments were not paid automatically, and indeed some volunteers did not claim them. 

Outcome of the case

Although the initial Employment Tribunal found that Mr Groom was not a worker and was simply a volunteer, when Mr Groom appealed the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), the EAT found that Mr Groom was, legally, a worker.   

The EAT said it was irrelevant that sums were not paid automatically and that some volunteers did not claim them. It found that a contract came into existence when a volunteer such as Mr Groom attended a relevant activity for which he had a right to claim costs.  

Furthermore, Mr Groom’s attendance was governed by a code of conduct which set out minimum levels of attendance at training and rescue incidents.  

The EAT found that all such factors pointed to Mr Groom being a worker; he was not simply a volunteer who could reclaim expenses. 

Significance of the case 

The case demonstrates the uncertain nature of who is a genuine volunteer (and therefore not entitled to the minimum benefits and protections referred to above), and who, whilst described as a volunteer, is in fact legally a “worker” (and so does have such benefits and protections). 

What should organisations do? 

A finding by a tribunal that those individuals who have always been regarded and labelled as volunteers are in fact legally “workers” can be very costly for the organisation for whom they provide services.  

Such costs would include not only having to make payments of at least the national minimum wage and holiday pay going forward, but also a potentially large bill to make back payments. 

Organisations should therefore review their volunteer practices and documentation to ensure that there is nothing which may convince an employment tribunal to make such a finding. 

If you’d like more information on this area of employment law, please contact Nick Hall, Consultant Employment Solicitor at Setfords: