By Jo Seery, Professional Support Lawyer
Introduction
Mr Groom volunteered as a Coastguard Rescue Officer (CRO) for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) from 1985. In May 2020, he attended a disciplinary hearing, following which he was dismissed. He appealed and requested that he be accompanied by his trade union representative at an appeal hearing on 5 July 2020. The MCA refused and his appeal was unsuccessful. Mr Groom brought a claim asserting a statutory right to be accompanied at an appeal meeting under s. 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999.
An employment tribunal first considered, as a preliminary issue, whether he was a worker as defined in section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal (ET) held he was not a worker because he was not contractually obliged to provide work or services to MCA as a volunteer. This was supported by the documents which described him as a volunteer.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned that decision finding that each time Mr Groom undertook an activity there was a contract between the parties and he was able to claim payment as compensation for his time. The EAT rejected MCA’s argument that Mr Groom could leave an activity at any time and was under no contractual obligation to MCA to complete it. The MCA appealed.
Key Issues
Worker status and the nature of the relationship
The central question was whether a CRO is a “worker” when attending activities for which remuneration is available. The MCA argued that the relationship between it and Mr Groom was purely voluntary and that there was no mutuality of obligation. It relied on its own Volunteer Handbook ( the ‘Handbook’) in support.
The Court of Appeal noted that as well as the Handbook, Mr Groom was required to comply with a Code of Conduct which set out a minimum attendance requirement. A “Remuneration Document” provided for CRO’s to apply to claim for remuneration for time attending an activity. Although he was not obliged to claim, the Court noted that approximately two-thirds of the CRO’s did claim. The hourly rate was not less than the National Minimum Wage and a payslip was issued setting out the hourly rate as well as travel and expenses associated with any specific activities Mr Groom did as a CRO.
The Court of Appeal held that, taken together, these features created a wage/work bargain, notwithstanding the broader voluntary context.
Mutuality of obligation during periods of work
The MCA argued that because CROs were free to choose when to respond to call‑outs and could theoretically walk away mid‑task, they could not be workers. The Court rejected this, distinguishing Mr Grooms case from that of X v Mid Sussex CAB [2011] where the CAB were under no legal obligation to provide work for the volunteers when they attended still less to pay them for any work done. By contrast, Mr Groom was able to claim a payment for any disruption to his personal life when he attended. Moreover the Courts in Uber BV v Islam and the Nursing and Midwifery Council v Somerville held that the fact an individual was under no obligation during the gaps between work did not mean there was no mutuality of obligation when an individual actually undertook work.
Intention to create legal relations
Although labelled “volunteers”, CROs were obliged to obey reasonable instructions when they attended and entitled to remuneration for much of that work. As such, the Court found it “plain” that legal relations were intended when a CRO attended an authorised activity. Given the terms of the remuneration document, if payment were refused, CROs would have a legally enforceable right to recover it.
Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed the MCA’s appeal and confirmed that a CRO is a worker during each period of attendance for which remuneration is available. The key determinant was the contractual right to payment combined with obligations while attending.
Why This Matters
- Volunteer status is not determinative: the courts will examine the reality of the relationship.
- Worker status can arise when an individual is performing work, even if there is no overarching contract covering the gaps.
- Where volunteers receive remuneration which reflects a wage/work bargain, they may fall within the statutory definition of “worker” which is a question of statutory interpretation.
