The Court of Appeal has recently held in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Martin Groom [2026] (‘Groom’) that a volunteer coastguard was a ‘worker’ when he attended calls from the maritime and coastguard agency. Although the case turned on its facts, there are useful lessons to learn for all those engaging volunteers and more generally regarding worker status.
Background of the case
Martin Groom had been a volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officer (‘CRO’) for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (‘MCA’) Coastguard Rescue Service since 1985.
Relevant documents described the relationship with such volunteers as a ‘voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists’, referred to there being no ‘mutuality of obligation’ and stated that CROs ‘are not paid’. There was, however, an option to claim payment for certain activities ‘to compensate for any disruption to your personal life and employment…’. A remuneration document set out details regarding ‘remuneration for time, travel and expenses associated with specific activities undertaken whilst on authorised duty’. Although CROs were not obliged to claim such payments many did so and received payslips accordingly.
In May 2020 Mr Groom was asked to attend a disciplinary hearing. His position as a CRO was later terminated by the MCA and Mr Groom’s request to be accompanied at an appeal hearing by a member of his trade union was refused. Mr Groom then brought a claim partly ‘to establish the rights’ of a CRO within the MCA.
The right to be accompanied – and worker status
The right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing and appeal hearing is a legislative right for employees and workers. Workers are defined in legislation and the question of who exactly is a ‘worker’ has often been considered by the courts. Although the right to be accompanied was the focus of Mr Groom’s claim, as the Court of Appeal acknowledged, ‘the issue of his status has wide ramifications since the same definition of “worker” applies for the purposes of qualifying for a variety of other statutory rights such as payment of the national minimum wage, paid holiday, the right to claim unlawful deductions from wages and the protection of whistleblowers.’
The Court’s decisions
Whether Mr Groom was considered a ‘worker’ became a preliminary issue. Although the initial Employment Tribunal considered that he was not a worker, the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed. The Court of Appeal has now decided that, on each occasion a CRO answers a call from the MCA to turn out and becomes entitled to make a claim for payment, they are doing so as a ‘worker’.
In reaching its decision the Court of Appeal rejected the MCA’s arguments that there was no mutuality of obligation, noting for example basic obligations on both CROs to comply with reasonable instructions whilst on duty and on the MCA to make payment for certain activities when claimed. The Court also found that, in the circumstances, there was an intention to create legal relations – ‘a classic “wage/work” bargain’.
Referring to the case of X v Mid-Sussex CAB [2011] which provided that ‘it cannot be assumed that all [volunteers] will have the same status in law’, the Court of Appeal in Groom also noted that ‘true volunteer cases… are quite different from the present case’. The ‘critical distinction’ being the matter of payment ‘other than the reimbursement of travel expenses, which it is common ground is insufficient on its own to create worker status’. In Groom, the payment arrangements went well beyond reimbursing expenses and created entitlement (even if not claimed) to remuneration for provision of services.
Key takeaways for employers
Remuneration risk – Many charities and organisations may be affected by this decision. If volunteers are entitled to make claims for payments then these need to be carefully considered – they may potentially lead to worker status.
Don’t rely on documents – In Groom the Court found that the documents did not reflect the reality and looked beyond the words to assess employment status. This approach is common in such matters and a warning not to simply rely on statements that individuals are not employees or workers.
Think carefully about status – Linked to the above, this case is yet another reminder to consider carefully all engagements (ideally at the outset) and characterise them appropriately. Whether intended to be voluntary, self-employed or otherwise, time and again courts have made decisions which have surprised organisations and created major challenges. Given the trend of the cases, it would be prudent to err on the side of caution with employment status assessments and take advice on this important area.