Volunteer or worker? Court of Appeal delivers a wake up call for employers in coastal rescue case

A recent Court of Appeal decision makes one thing clear for employers: calling someone a “volunteer” will not necessarily determine their legal status.

In Maritime & Coastguard Agency v Groom, the Court of Appeal held that a Coastal Rescue Officer described as a volunteer was, in fact, a worker during periods when he undertook activities for which payment was available.

Background Facts

Mr Groom carried out his duties as a Coastal Rescue Officer under a volunteer framework applied across the country. Although the Maritime and Coastguard Agency maintained that he was a volunteer, the handbook and ancillary documents making up the framework allowed him to claim payment for a wide range of activities. When he was later dismissed, Mr Groom argued that this arrangement meant he was in fact a “worker” and therefore entitled to statutory protections, including the right to be accompanied at his disciplinary hearing.

The Employment Tribunal initially rejected that argument, finding that no contract existed.

However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal took the opposite view, concluding that the documents created enforceable contractual obligations and a wage–work bargain. The Court of Appeal has now upheld that decision, underscoring the need for employers to scrutinise volunteer arrangements carefully.

The Court of Appeal’s Key Findings

The Court of Appeal was clear that Mr Groom qualified as a worker only during the periods when he carried out activities for which payment was available.

It was decided that each time Mr Groom undertook a paid task, a contract came into existence. That is, the promise of remuneration created a straightforward wage–work bargain. During those activities, the necessary mutuality of obligation was present, meaning Mr Groom was required to follow reasonable instructions, and the Agency was obliged to pay him if he submitted a claim.

Importantly, the Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no need for an overarching or continuous contract governing the entire relationship. This means that worker status could arise on a task‑by‑task basis, depending on whether the activity attracted payment. The fact that the documentation governing the arrangement repeatedly described individuals as volunteers did not alter the legal analysis. What mattered was the practical reality of the arrangement, not the label applied to it. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the intention to create legal relations was evident whenever Mr Groom undertook paid activities.

Most crucially, this judgment makes it even less likely that a lack of ongoing mutual obligations will prevent someone being classed as a worker. However, above all, it confirms that what really matters is how the relationship works in practice, not how it is labelled.

Why This Matters for Employers

For employers using volunteers, casual workers, or individuals who can opt into paid activities, the implications are significant:

• Offering payment for certain tasks may inadvertently create worker status.
• Control, instructions, and expectations during those tasks strengthen the case for worker rights.
• Policies describing individuals as “volunteers” will not protect an organisation if the reality suggests otherwise.

Next Steps for Employers

Organisations relying on volunteer or hybrid models should review:

• when and how their volunteers are paid (if relevant),
• the level of control or instruction given during activities,
• whether certain tasks create contractual obligations, and
• whether documentation accurately reflects the working reality.

This is particularly important for charities, public bodies, and organisations using on‑call staff.

BTO Employment Team

If your organisation engages volunteers or individuals who can claim payment for specific tasks, BTO’s expert Employment Team can help you assess the risks and ensure your arrangements are compliant.

We regularly advise on employment status, volunteer frameworks, and drafting documentation that withstands scrutiny.

Get in touch with our team for tailored advice or a review of your current arrangements.

Douglas Strang

Natalie Boal