Home / Volunteer or worker? What organisations need to know after MCA v Groom
3rd February 2026
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom (2026) has significant implications for any organisation that depends on volunteers, especially where those volunteers may receive remuneration for certain activities. The case serves as a useful warning to business owners, HR professionals, and charity leaders about the potential status of their “volunteers” but it also underlines a principle that is nothing new for tribunal judges, namely that just because an employer (or employee) puts a label on a relationship, does not mean that a tribunal will agree with you. Tribunals will look at all of the facts and circumstances of the particular relationship and make its own adjudication on the status of the individual.
UK law recognises three categories of working individuals: employees, workers, and the self‑employed. “Workers” occupy a middle ground and are entitled to important rights including:
As the judge put it in the original decision in the tribunal, “if CROs have the status of workers of the respondent there are ramifications for a large number of legal obligations and duties”. In that respect, the judge was right.
In Groom, the Court of Appeal confirmed that volunteers can qualify as workers, even without an employment contract, if they personally perform services under a contract and receive (or are entitled to receive) remuneration. The judgement also spelt out that “’volunteer’ is not a term of art, and volunteers hold no special status as a matter of law.”
Mr Groom was a Coastguard Rescue Officer (CRO) for 35 years. In the particular circumstances of this case Mr Groom was invited to a disciplinary meeting which resulted in his termination as a CRO with immediate effect. The sole issue in the case was whether Mr Groom was entitled, as a worker, to be accompanied at the disciplinary meeting.
CROs were described as volunteers with no mutuality of obligation, but they were required to maintain competence and follow instructions, they could claim hourly payments for attending certain activities, and they received payslips and annual P60s when claiming remuneration. Not every CRO chose to claim payment, but around two thirds did.
The Court held that each time a CRO attended an activity for which they were entitled to claim remuneration, a legal contract arose. During that activity, they were performing work in return for pay—a classic “wage/work bargain”.
The judgment emphasised two important principles:
This aligns with recent Supreme Court cases involving Uber drivers and part‑time football referees, where flexibility and an ability to decline work did not prevent worker status. This ruling matters beyond the coastguard service. Many charities and volunteer‑reliant organisations such as mountain rescue teams, lifeboat services, emergency response groups, operate on similar “paid volunteering” models. The risk is that individuals who receive (or can claim) payments beyond expenses may be legally classed as workers.
Worker status cannot be avoided by describing individuals as volunteers, stating there is “no contract of employment”, suggesting payments are for inconvenience or disruption or making payments optional to claim. Courts will look at the reality of the arrangement, not the language used.
Audit your volunteer programmes. Where volunteers receive or can claim hourly or sessional payments, the risk of worker status is high.
Check handbooks, role descriptions, codes of conduct, and remuneration schemes for obligations imposed on volunteers, instruction‑following requirements and payment entitlements. If the documentation looks like an employment‑style framework, it may inadvertently create worker rights.
Ask, when a volunteer attends an activity, do they perform work in exchange for money? If yes, even for some activities, they may be a worker (or at least a worker during that time).
Ensure managers and volunteer coordinators understand when rights may arise, particularly regarding:
Your options might include moving to a genuine expenses‑only model, clearly separating honorarium‑style payments that are not linked to hours worked and creating formal worker contracts for volunteer roles that are functionally paid work
The Groom decision is a wake‑up call. Organisations can no longer rely on labels or tradition to determine employment status. If volunteers are paid or entitled to claim payment for their time, there is a real risk they will be declared workers, with all the associated statutory rights that brings.