The claimant made claims relating to discrimination on the grounds of disability, breaches of national minimum wage regulations and lack of notice of dismissal.  These claims were rebuffed by the Respondent who argued that the claimant had never been employed by her nor was she a worker of hers.

The start of the relationship arose when the respondent established her own dance class.  She knew the claimant as both of their daughters attended a previous dance class and it was from their unhappiness that the respondent established her own dance class.  The claimant contacted the respondent asking if she could play some part in the classes.  There was a fundamental disagreement about the conversations that occurred prior to the dance class being established.  The respondent stated that the claimant agreed to be a volunteer receptionist when the classes were taking place whereas the claimant stated there was an agreement that she would be an employee and that she would be paid when the dance classes started to make money.

The claimant applied to become a chaperone and on the respondent’s advice she indicated that she was a part-time employee.  In terms of the receptionist work, the claimant did regularly do this but there were occasions when she did not as she was busy doing something else.  The claimant was told that her services as a receptionist were no longer required but relations were still cordial.   However, there was an allegation that the claimant had made inappropriate contact with a child and it was passed on to the claimant, but no further investigation was undertaken.

The Tribunal looked at the evidence and whilst the claimant tried to make a point of a lack of volunteer agreement the Tribunal held that the absence of a contract of employment was more remarkable.  Furthermore, the claimant had been claiming benefits and there was no indication that she had been employed at any time during her claim.  In light of this, the claimant was regarded as a volunteer rather than a worker or an employee.  It was further held that as a result of X v Mid Sussex CAB it is clear that volunteers are unable to claim discrimination in line with the legislation.  Therefore, all claims were dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case may seem like a straightforward matter when it comes to employment status but there are some pertinent lessons to be taken from this.  The most overarching is the lack of applicability of discrimination protection when it comes to volunteers compared to employees/workers.  A further point is the wider context to be considered such as extraneous factors like the benefit claim. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc8a4178fa8f547553928af/Ms_T_Armitage_v_Johanna_Marie_Boor_2301007-2019.pdf