High‑profile cases involving organisations such as Uber, Pimlico Plumbers, Addison Lee, Yodel and even the Ministry of Justice have brought renewed scrutiny to how individuals carrying out work are classified, specifically, whether they are self-employed or workers.
These cases are of great interest and importance as workers benefit from statutory rights, including the National Minimum Wage, paid holiday, protection from unlawful deductions and whistleblowing safeguards, whereas volunteers and the self-employed do not. For businesses, getting this wrong can have major financial and commercial consequences.
The most recent case in this developing area of law concerns Coastguard Rescue Officer (CRO) Martin Groom and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
Case Background: Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Mr Groom served as a CRO for over thirty years, responding to countless emergencies along the coast. However, on 15th May 2020, while based on the Isle of Wight, he was invited to a Disciplinary Hearing where his membership of the MCA was terminated with immediate effect.
Crucially, he was not permitted to be represented by a Trade Union official, something a worker would be entitled to, but a volunteer or self-employed person would not.
With support from the GMB Union, Mr Groom brought a claim before the Employment Tribunal to determine whether he was, in fact, a worker and therefore entitled to representation.
The Tribunal
The MCA relies heavily on volunteer Rescue Officers, who are governed by a Volunteer Handbook, Code of Conduct and remuneration document. These describe CROs as “volunteers” with no “contract of employment” or “mutuality of obligation”. However, they also impose clear requirements, including maintaining competence through regular training, complying with instructions and achieving reasonable attendance levels.
The remuneration document outlined that CROs could claim payments for certain activities, described as “compensation for any disruption to personal life and employment”. Although only around two-thirds of CROs choose to claim, those who do receive itemised pay slips showing hourly remuneration at or above the National Minimum Wage, reimbursement of expenses and a yearly P60 tax form.
The Decision
Employment Judge Cadney held that Mr Groom was not a worker, primarily because there was no contractual obligation on him to provide work or services and no automatic right to remuneration, as many volunteers chose not to claim payment. The Judge concluded the relationship was voluntary.
Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision (May 2024)
Understandably, Mr Groom was unhappy with this decision and appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The decision was overturned, ruling that Mr Groom was a worker. Key to this conclusion was the finding that the right to claim remuneration existed, whether or not he exercised it. This created a legal entitlement inconsistent with the MCA’s characterisation of CROs as volunteers.
Judge Gavin Mansfield emphasised that Tribunals must “look beyond the labels used in documents that may not reflect the reality of the relationship.” The description of CROs as volunteers was therefore not determinative.
Court of Appeal Decision
The MCA appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s ruling. The Court found that:
- When a CRO undertakes an activity for which remuneration can be claimed, a contract arises between them and the MCA
- The remuneration document established a clear “wage/work bargain”
- It was “unarguable” that a CRO would have no legally enforceable right to claim payment after providing services
While CROs were under no obligation to attend any particular task, once they did, they were required to follow instructions and became entitled to claim payment, reinforcing their status as workers.
Implications for the MCA and Beyond
This ruling carries significant ramifications for the MCA, which engages around 3,100 officers nationwide. In light of the decision, the organisation has already commenced a major operational overhaul, with plans to recruit up to 600 full-time officers.
GMB National Legal Officer Tushar Singh commented that the ruling is “hugely significant, with potential implications for the voluntary sector as a whole.”
An MCA spokesperson responded:
“Volunteers in HM Coastguard play a vital role in the UK’s national emergency response. We deeply value and recognise the significant service they provide… We are currently reviewing the implications of this Judgment for both our volunteers and the organisation as a whole.”
What this means for Employers
What is abundantly clear from this case is that if individuals are engaged by a business, and not simply volunteers or self-employed, they will meet the legal definition of workers and will be entitled to statutory protections. Misclassification can expose businesses to costly claims and reputational damage.
If you are unsure whether those carrying out work for you are volunteers, self-employed contractors or workers, and want to avoid the pitfalls encountered by the MCA, our employment law specialists can help. Contact our team on 0191 384 2441 or email Jonathan.Moreland@swinburnemaddison.co.uk.
