The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency that a contract for the provision of services arose when a volunteer for the coastal rescue service attended activities for which he was entitled to be remunerated.
The claimant volunteered for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA's) Coastguard Rescue Service (CRS) as a Coastal Rescue Officer (CRO). Membership of the CRS was described in the Volunteer Handbook as "entirely voluntary" and the Handbook provided that "no contract of employment exists" between MCA and its CRS volunteers. Volunteers were expected to abide by the Code of Conduct. This provided that monthly payment claims could be submitted for certain activities to cover minor costs caused by volunteering and to compensate for disruption and unsocial hours. When payments were made, the CRO received a payslip which itemised hourly remuneration and expenses and, at the end of the year, the CRO received a P60.
Failure to follow the Code of Conduct could result in termination of CRS membership and, following a disciplinary hearing, the claimant's membership was terminated and he was issued with a P45. He then brought a claim to the employment tribunal that there had been a failure on MCA's part to allow him to be accompanied to the disciplinary hearing.In order to proceed with this claim he had to show that he was a worker.
At a preliminary hearing the employment tribunal held that the claimant could not bring his claim as there was no contract between him and MCA, the agreement governing the arrangement was described as a voluntary one and there was no automatic remuneration for any activity. On appeal the EAT disagreed. It held that the tribunal had failed to take account of the fact that the volunteer had the right to remuneration for many activities (even if they were not automatically paid and had to be claimed for), and concluded that a contract came into existence when a volunteer attended a relevant activity for which they had a right to remuneration. The EAT held that this contract was a contract for the provision of services, and not a collateral contract for the reimbursement of expenses incurred. The right to remuneration, coupled with the volunteer's attendance in the context of a Code of Conduct which set out minimum levels of attendance at training and emergency response incidents, led to this conclusion. The question of worker status in relation to attendance at non-remunerated activities remained an open question for the tribunal.
Take note: In coming to its conclusion the EAT stressed that, although the use of the word volunteer may suggest an absence of intention to create legal relations, '"volunteer" is not a term of art and the legal status of all volunteers is not necessarily the same. Whether or not there is a contract will be determined from the documents as a whole and the nature of the volunteer arrangements.
