EAT Rules Volunteer Entitled to Worker Rights for Paid Activities

Mr. Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Background

Mr. Martin Groom, a volunteer with the Coastal Rescue Service, appealed against the Employment Tribunal (ET) decision, which held that he was not a worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Mr. Groom argued that he should have been considered a worker under s 230 (3) (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 entitling him to certain employment rights, including the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative at a disciplinary hearing.

Tribunal Findings

The tribunal concluded that Mr. Groom was not a worker, emphasising the voluntary nature of his role and concluding that there was no contractual relationship between Mr. Groom and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The tribunal pointed out that Mr. Groom's participation was voluntary, and many activities he performed did not automatically entitle him to be paid.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Decision

The EAT allowed Mr. Groom's appeal, finding errors in the Tribunal’s analysis of the contractual obligations and payment related to Mr. Groom's activities. The EAT determined that:

• The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the documents governing the relationship, failing to recognise a contract where Mr. Groom was entitled to pay.
• There was a clear right to be paid for many activities, creating a contractual obligation, even if claims for payment had to be submitted.
• The mutuality of obligation and personal service required for worker status were present in the context of paid activities.

Key Judgments

1. Existence of a Contract: The EAT found that a contract was formed each time Mr. Groom attended an activity where pay was offered, making him a worker for those activities.
2. Remuneration as a Key Factor: The tribunal's conclusion that the absence of automatic remuneration precluded a contract was incorrect. The right to be paid established a contractual relationship.
3. Volunteer Status: The EAT rejected the argument that Mr. Groom's status as a volunteer negated the possibility of a contractual relationship, emphasising that the nature of obligations and remuneration indicated a worker status during certain activities.

Implications for Union Representatives

1. Worker Status Clarification: This case underscores the importance of recognising that volunteers can be considered workers if there are clear contractual obligations, particularly related to the availability of payment. Union representatives should be alive to the possibility volunteers can sometimes be considered workers.
2. Right to Representation: The decision reinforces the right of workers, including those in voluntary roles who receive payment for some activities, to be accompanied by a trade union representative at disciplinary hearings.
3. Contractual Relationships in Voluntary Roles: The case highlights the necessity of carefully examining the terms of engagement for volunteers, especially where there are payments involved.

Conclusion

The EAT's decision in Mr. Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency provides important guidance on the recognition of worker status for volunteers receiving remuneration. Union representatives should use this case to better support members in understanding and asserting their employment rights in similar contexts.