Worker status and (paid) volunteers

The outcome in the recent case, Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom [2026] EWCA Civ 6, has potential implications for any organisations using ‘paid volunteers’.

The Court of Appeal held that where an organisation agrees to remunerate a volunteer for their time and exercises control over how the work is carried out, worker status will arise. Worker status entitles individuals to the benefit of certain statutory rights including the national minimum wage, paid annual leave, protection against unlawful deductions from wages and whistleblower protections.

This is an important ruling that could enhance a volunteer’s legal protection in some cases.

Facts of the case

Martin Groom served as a Coastguard Rescue Officer (CRO) from 1985. Following disciplinary proceedings in 2020, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) terminated his role. Mr Groom sought the statutory right to be accompanied at his appeal hearing by a union official; the MCA refused on the basis that he was a volunteer, not a worker.

At MCA, ‘volunteers’ are engaged under a Volunteer Handbook, Code of Conduct and a remuneration document. Although there was no obligation to attend for work, CROs were required to attend training, comply with instructions when on duty, and meet reasonable attendance expectations.

The remuneration document provided that CROs could claim payment for some activities, as “compensation for any disruption to personal life and employment”. These payments were claimed by two-thirds of the CROs, who received a payslip and an annual P60.

The employment tribunal held there was no contract and therefore no worker status. The Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed that decision, holding that a contract arose each time Mr Groom attended an activity for which he had a right to claim remuneration. The MCA appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed MCA’s appeal and upheld the EAT’s decision. It confirmed that a CRO is a worker under the ERA 1996 each time they attend for activities for which there is an entitlement to remuneration. Even though in this case, there was no obligation by Mr Groom to accept work when it was offered, this did not prevent worker status from arising.

In this case, the relationship with CROs went beyond a ‘true volunteer’ model, because payments were not limited to just expenses but constituted genuine remuneration for services.

The Birketts view

The label ‘volunteer’ does not protect employers from an individual being granted worker status. Worker status may apply where there are certain characteristics to the relationship, which include a right to pay for certain activities and control over how work is done.  

For organisations, this judgment means that unbudgeted costs may arise as a result of engaging ‘volunteers’, if they are deemed in law to be a ‘worker’. This is because a worker is entitled to receive the national minimum wage for hours worked and paid annual leave (along with other rights). Given the financial implications, it is sensible for organisations to review the use of volunteers and consider the practical implications that this judgment may have.

Organisations cannot avoid worker status simply by labelling individuals as volunteers. The court will look at what is happening in practice, including whether individuals are entitled to remuneration. However, a genuine volunteering arrangement with no entitlement to remuneration beyond out-of-pocket expenses still sits outside worker status.

If you have any questions or concerns about the issues arising from this case, our employment team would be happy to assist.