Worker Status Confirmed for Coastguard Volunteers in Appeal Ruling

Published : January 21, 2026

In Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the employment appeal tribunal has made a significant ruling regarding worker status. While Mr Groom was unsuccessful in his original claim, in which he argued that his status at the agency was that of a worker, not a volunteer, his appeal was upheld. This ruling could have major implications for many other coastguard rescue volunteers, who may also be classified as workers, especially those who received payment for their time.

Read on as we examine what happened during the GMB Union-backed claim and why the appeal tribunal overturned the decision. We then discuss the differences between volunteers and workers and outline what individuals can do if their status is incorrect.

If you believe your rights have been breached due to incorrect employment status classification, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As experts in the employment sector, we can assess your circumstances, provide answers, and discuss your options to proceed.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help you, simply:

The Facts in Mr Martin Groom v Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Mr Martin Groom (“the Claimant”) began volunteering for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (“the Respondent”) in December 1985. He started as a Coastal Rescue Officer (CRO) before becoming a Station Officer (SO) in 2011.

Issues arose on 15 May 2020, when the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing. His membership with the Respondent was subsequently terminated, following which he unsuccessfully appealed the decision. On 8 September, he was then provided with a P45 confirming his leaving date as that day.

Following the termination of his role, the Claimant brought claims to the employment tribunal. He alleged that the Respondent had unlawfully prevented him from being accompanied to the disciplinary hearing with his trade union representative. However, this right only applies to workers, not volunteers.

Read More: Single Worker Status: What Are the Government’s Plans to Redefine Employment Types?

On reflection of the documents governing the employment relationship, the tribunal held that there was no contract between the parties in respect of the volunteer role. Thus, it concluded that the Claimant wasn’t a worker and so wasn’t entitled to trade union representation, dismissing his claim. The Claimant consequently appealed this decision, bringing his worker status case before the employment appeal tribunal.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s Judgment

During the proceedings, the employment appeal tribunal established that its central question regarded the meaning and interpretation of the Respondent’s Volunteer Agreement and Code of Conduct. From this, it had to determine whether the Claimant held worker status.

The appeal tribunal then set out the definition of a “worker” under section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under this provision, a “worker” is either (a) an individual employed under a contract of employment, or (b) an individual who undertakes to perform work or services personally under any other contract, whether express or implied, for another party who isn’t a client or customer of a business carried on by the individual. Since the Claimant didn’t work under an employment contract, the appeal tribunal therefore needed to consider whether his circumstances satisfied limb (b) of the definition.

Applying the Worker Status Test to the Facts

The appeal tribunal held that the Claimant undertook the work personally and the Respondent wasn’t his client or customer. The remaining point of dispute concerned whether there was an agreement under which he agreed to work for the Respondent.

On this point, the appeal tribunal ruled in the Claimant’s favour, ultimately agreeing that he held worker status. Crucially, several elements of the Respondent’s Volunteer Agreement and Code of Conduct contradicted one another.

On the one hand, the documents stated that “no contract of employment exists,” “there is no minimum response commitment by our volunteers,” and “they are not paid.” Yet at other times, the documents said, “The relationship…is a voluntary two-way commitment,” provided a requirement to “maintain a reasonable level of incident attendance,” and stated, “You can submit monthly claims for payment for certain activities.”

Read More: Sick Pay in the UK: Understanding Your Sick Pay Entitlements

While payment had to be claimed by the coastguard rescue officers, with many deciding not to claim, the appeal tribunal emphasised that this didn’t remove the right to payment. Moreover, remuneration claims were separate from expenses claims, further highlighting this entitlement.

As a result, the employment appeal tribunal overturned the original tribunal’s decision, determining that the Claimant held worker status. While the Respondent appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, this was ultimately unsuccessful.

This decision holds significant importance, not only for the thousands of coastguard rescue officers nationwide who may now be classified as workers, but also for other individuals in similar circumstances who may be misclassified.

Volunteer vs Worker: What’s the Difference?

The distinction between a volunteer and a worker is an important one, as highlighted in the above case. Under UK employment law, this difference establishes whether an individual is entitled to statutory employment rights.

A “volunteer” isn’t a legally defined status under UK law; arrangements vary depending on the circumstances. That being said, volunteers typically don’t have contractual obligations to perform work, can decline tasks without consequence, and don’t receive remuneration for their services. They also don’t benefit from statutory rights and protections, including the right to be accompanied to a disciplinary hearing.

Notably, though, while volunteer arrangements can vary, simply labelling someone a “volunteer” doesn’t automatically make them one. This was the case with Mr Groom, whose arrangement satisfied the conditions of a worker.

In the end, this distinction was important for Mr Groom and can be for many others. The reason for this is that workers enjoy several statutory rights. As discussed previously, for someone to be a worker, they must satisfy the definition under section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, if they do, they gain access to entitlements such as the National Minimum Wage, paid holidays, and more.

Ultimately, where disputes arise, it will be up to the tribunal to determine whether one’s circumstances meet the definition of a worker, regardless of the labels attached. If they do, though, various rights will be gained, making it crucial for employers to get this right to avoid liability.

What to Do If You Believe Your Worker Status Is Incorrect

If an individual believes their worker status is wrong, they should first discuss the matter with their manager. It may be that a mistake has been made or clarity is required. Whatever the case, if there’s an issue, this is likely the swiftest and most hassle-free way of rectifying the problem.

Should the issue persist, a formal grievance filed in line with the employer’s policies is often the next step. Like with an informal chat, the matter can be resolved quickly and without the need for further escalation. However, this step differs in that it imposes additional obligations on the employer to handle the matter in a legally compliant manner.

Where internal avenues fail to provide a satisfactory outcome, the next step is to consider Acas early conciliation. This free and independent process is required before most employment tribunal claims can be brought, and gives both parties another chance to settle.

As a last resort, a tribunal claim can be pursued. Yet, to do so, strict eligibility criteria and time limits must be adhered to. If an individual succeeds in their claim, they may be awarded compensation, among other remedies.

Worker Status Wrong? Get Help with Redmans

If you, like the coastguard rescue officers, believe your worker status is incorrect, and rights have been breached, contact us. Redmans Solicitors are employment experts, and following a brief chat, we can provide specialist advice. We can also assess your eligibility to claim compensation and guide those eligible through the legal process.

To learn more about the help we provide, please:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.