In a recent case called Maritime and Coastal Agency v Groom, Mr Groom was a Coastal Rescue Officer (CRO). He worked under a volunteer handbook and ancillary documents, the terms of which were common to thousands of CROs across the UK. Under these documents, Mr Groom was entitled to be paid for many activities – if he submitted a claim for payment. After Mr Groom was dismissed by the Agency, he brought a claim alleging he was a worker and had the right to be accompanied at his disciplinary hearing. The Agency alleged that he was a volunteer and not a worker so had not been entitled to be accompanied.
The Court of Appeal held that:
- A contract came into effect (and Mr Groom was a worker) every time he undertook an activity with promised payment. This arrangement demonstrated a classic ‘wage/work’ bargain.
- There was mutuality of obligation when activities were undertaken for payment: Mr Groom had to comply with reasonable instructions during the activity and the Agency had to pay him if he claimed for his attendance.
- It did not matter that Mr Groom only had a contract with the Agency when he undertook activities with promised payment – there was no need for there to be an umbrella contract governing the whole relationship. The status could exist merely during the actual (paid) work.
The fact that the documents setting out the relationship stressed that CROs were volunteers and that there was no mutuality of obligation, did not override the factual reality of the situation.