Can a volunteer be a worker? Guidance from the Court of Appeal

23 January 2026

Maz Dannourah and Tom Brennan

Under employment law, an individual providing services for another person will either be an employee, a worker or self-employed. An individual’s employment status will determine whether they qualify for statutory rights, including the right to be paid minimum wage and the right to paid holiday.

In Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom [2026] EWCA Civ 6 the Court of Appeal held that a volunteer coastguard rescue officer (“VCRO”) had the employment status of a worker.

Brief facts

Mr Groom had been a VCRO since 1985. In June 2020, Mr Groom’s position as a VCRO was terminated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (“MCA”) following a disciplinary hearing. Mr Groom appealed this decision and sought to exercise his statutory right to be accompanied to his appeal hearing by a member of his trade union (a right available to employees and workers). The MCA did not allow Mr Groom to be accompanied to the hearing, arguing that as a VCRO (i.e. not an employee or worker) he was not entitled to this right. The appeal was unsuccessful, and Mr Groom’s position was terminated.

Mr Groom brought an ET claim alleging that he was a worker.

What did the relevant documents say about VCROs’ employment status?

VCROs were issued with a Volunteer Handbook by the MCA, and expected to abide by the MCA’s Code of Conduct. These documents stated the following:

that the relationship between the MCA and VCROs was a “voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists”;

that there was no mutuality of obligation between VCROs and the MCA;

that VCROs were required to comply with all instructions and carry out all reasonable requests made by coastguard staff or other VCROs in positions of authority when responding to call outs, undertaking training or participating in volunteer led practice;

that VCROs were required to maintain a reasonable level of incident attendance; and

that while not obligated to do so, VCROs could submit monthly claims for payment for certain activities to cover the costs of volunteering (calculated based on an hourly rate) and to compensate them for “any disruption to [their] personal life and employment and for unsocial hours callouts”. When payments were made, VCROs would receive a payslip itemising hourly remuneration and expenses.

Decisions of the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) found that Mr Groom (and by extension, VCROs) was not a worker, as there was not at any time a contractual relationship between Mr Groom and the MCA. The EAT reversed this decision, finding that Mr Groom was a worker, and that a contract for services came into existence each time he attended an activity in respect of which there was a right to remuneration (regardless of whether Mr Groom exercised this right).

The MCA appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the EAT’s decision and dismissed the appeal, finding that:

while the relevant documents provided that Mr Groom was not obliged to attend work on any particular occasion, if he did attend, he was bound to obey reasonable instructions and entitled (although not compelled) to claim remuneration for much of that work. This was evidence of a wage/work bargain and that there was an intention to create legal relations between Mr Groom and the MCA;

that there was mutuality of obligation between Mr Groom and the MCA. Mr Groom was obligated to comply with reasonable instructions while on duty and the MCA was obligated to pay Mr Groom should he make a claim for payment for certain activities; and

it was not a bar to worker status that Mr Groom was under no obligation to attend for work. The Court of Appeal affirmed that a contract of employment could be limited to the period during which the employee carried out paid work, and there might be sufficient mutuality of obligation, even if the obligations only subsisted during that period.

What does this mean for employers?

This judgment could have a huge impact on organisations that rely upon volunteers (particularly those who are remunerated). The judgment is also a reminder to all employers of the risks of misclassifying individuals as self-employed rather than as workers or employees, given the potential financial exposure that can arise where claims for national minimum wage or holiday pay are pursued.

The judgment affirms the long-standing principle that when determining an individual’s employment status, while Tribunals will have regard to the content of the relevant documents, it will scrutinise the substance of the true relationship between the parties and look at what happens day to day rather than the labels attached by the parties. Employers should regularly review their use of self-employed individuals and volunteers to identify any potential misclassification risk at an early stage.