Employment Status: When a “Volunteer” May Actually Be a Worker

It may seem straightforward to label someone a “volunteer.” But in practice, the legal status of a person offering their services unpaid—or partly paid—can be far more complex. The key question is: when is a volunteer actually a worker under employment law?

A recent case involving Mr Martin Groom offers important lessons. Mr Groom volunteered for many years with the Coastguard Rescue Service (CRS) for the Maritime & Coastguard Agency. However, the relationship changed when he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and was denied the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative. This right only applies if someone is a “worker”.

While the court’s decision did not declare that Mr Groom was a worker in all circumstances, it did find that, for certain activities for which he could claim payment, he was a worker. This raises a significant caution sign for organisations relying on volunteer arrangements.

Why The Label Alone Doesn’t Determine Status

Many organisations assume that simply calling someone a “volunteer” means they can avoid employment-law obligations (minimum wage, paid holiday, protection rights, etc.). But employment law makes no automatic exception for volunteers. What counts is the real working relationship in practice.

That means when a person engages in services under arrangements that look like work, the courts will look beyond labels to ask:

• Is there a contract (express or implied) that the person will provide services?
• Are those services provided personally (not as part of a business)?
• Is the other party not a client or customer of those services?
• What obligations or rights arise (attendance, performance, payment, training)?

In the Groom case, the documentation described the relationship as a “voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists”. But that wasn’t decisive—the legal test required an analysis of the arrangement’s reality.

What Happened in the Groom Case

Here is a summary of the facts and decision:

• Mr Groom was a volunteer Coastal Rescue Officer with the CRS. Under a “Volunteer Handbook” and Volunteer Code of Conduct, there were expected levels of training attendance and incident response.
• The handbook stated that volunteering was “entirely voluntary” and that no contract of employment existed.
• Volunteers could submit monthly “claims” for payment covering their time, travel, unsocial hours and disruption to personal life and employment. While claiming was optional and many volunteers did not claim, the right to make a claim was present.
• A disciplinary process arose. Mr Groom requested to be accompanied by a trade-union representative. Because CRS considered him a volunteer (not a worker), they refused.
• At first instance (Employment Tribunal), the decision was that Mr Groom was not a worker — there was no contract, attendees came voluntarily, and no automatic payment entitlement existed.
• Mr Groom appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT found that the Tribunal had erred: the documents did grant a right to payment in respect of certain activities (what the EAT described as remuneration), and when he carried out those activities, he worked under a contract for services. On that basis, the EAT held that for the periods in which Mr Groom engaged in paid activity, he was a worker.
• The EAT left open the question of whether he was a worker for unpaid volunteer activities.

The case demonstrates that an umbrella volunteer agreement can give rise to a series of individual contracts when a person attends and carries out paid activities.

Key Legal Principles and Risk Areas

From the Groom decision and associated commentary, several important principles and risk factors emerge:

1. Volunteers Are Not Automatically Excluded

Just because someone is referred to as a volunteer and the documents state that “no contract of employment exists” does not mean that their status as a worker or employee is impossible. The EAT reaffirmed that volunteering is not a defined legal status in itself.

2. Presence of Payment Can Signify a Contract

In Groom, the fact that there was an accepted right to “remuneration” (even if on a claim basis) tipped the balance. The right to payment for certain activities, particularly those with minimum attendance expectations and performance requirements, can indicate worker status.

3. Expectations, Obligations and Personal Service Count

Minimum training, incident attendance, a Code of Conduct, and performance obligations were all relevant. The fact that the volunteer had to perform personally (rather than delegate) and follow instructions/standards indicated a “personal service” and contract.

4. The Label “Volunteer” Is Not Determinative

The legal test examines what actually happens, not what the paperwork states. Just because someone is described as a volunteer does not mean all protection can be excluded.

5. Some Activities May Be Volunteer & Others Worker

An important nuance: the EAT held that Mr Groom was a worker only when carrying out specific activities for which payment was available. It did not decide whether he was a worker for purely unpaid activities. This means organisations may face “mixed status” issues—some duties may attract worker rights, others may not.

Practical Implications for Organisations

If your organisation uses volunteers, work-experience individuals, or interns, the Groom case should serve as a wake-up call. Here’s how to manage the risk:

• Review all volunteer agreements, handbooks and codes of conduct. Check for any payment or remuneration—not just reimbursement of genuine expenses.
• Confirm whether the role has minimum attendance or performance obligations. Obligations increase the risk of establishing worker status.
• Avoid wording that implies an obligation to attend or perform duties unless you intend worker status.
• Ensure payments to volunteers are clearly for expenses reimbursement (receipts, actual costs incurred), not for payment for time or unsocial hours.
• Distinguish between purely voluntary roles (no expectation of work, flexible attendance) and roles that approximate employment.
• For internships or placements, check whether the individual is doing real “work” for the organisation or simply learning and observing.
• Train commissioning managers and volunteer coordinators about the risk of misclassification.
• If you discover that payment arrangements or duties may trigger worker status, consider alternatives (such as a fixed stipend below the threshold, a clearer expectation of flexibility, or a conversion to a paid worker contract).
• Ensure that disciplinary procedures, union representation rights, and national minimum wage obligations are considered if worker status may apply.

What This Means for Individual Volunteers

For volunteers or individuals offering services, the case offers reassurance that “volunteer” does not automatically mean you lack rights. If you engage in activities with payment rights or attendance obligations, you may be a worker and entitled to rights such as:

• being accompanied by a trade-union representative at disciplinary hearings (where applicable)
• statutory holiday pay and other worker rights (depending on nature and duration)
• minimum wage protections for paid activities

If you believe your arrangement may qualify, you should check whether you were required to attend, whether you could claim pay, and whether you had to perform personally for the organisation, not just as a self-employed contractor.

Why This Case Matters and What to Watch

The Groom case is significant because it highlights the need to examine closely how we define volunteer status in real-life situations. It also makes clear that if someone gets paid for certain tasks, they may be considered a worker, even if they are in a volunteer role. This decision warns organisations that use volunteers to be careful and actively manage the risk of misclassifying individuals.

In the future, we may see more Tribunal and court decisions exploring the boundary between volunteers, workers, and employees. It is prudent to monitor developments and to revisit any “volunteer” arrangements you have.