Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Summary Description:
A volunteer was found to be a worker as a result of the contract between the parties and the provision of personal service.
Background:
The respondent is responsible for civil maritime search and rescue. It is made up of 108 employed staff and 3500 volunteer Coastal Rescue Officers. The claimant was one of these Volunteer Coastal Rescue Officers having been so since 1985. In May 2020 the claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting and his membership of the Coastguard Rescue Service was terminated. The actual issue arising was the employment status of the claimant as having worker status would have engaged the right to be accompanied at the disciplinary hearing.
Outcome:
The Tribunal, at first instance, found that the claimant was not a worker on the basis that there was no contract between the claimant and the respondent. Both the Tribunal and EAT acknowledged the use of ‘Volunteer’ but noted that it is not a term of art, and volunteers hold no special status as a matter of law. Instead, the legal status of a volunteer will depend upon analysis of the particular relationship under which the volunteer’s services are provided.
The Tribunal stated that there was no contract based upon the construction and interpretation of the documents governing the relationship. The EAT stated the question was whether the Tribunal erred in finding no contract in relation to individual activities attending by the claimant through an umbrella or overarching contract.
It was found that the Tribunal had erred in its analysis especially relating to the respondent’s obligation to remunerate the claimant. It was irrelevant that such a claim would have to be submitted by the claimant and that many of the volunteers did not submit such claims. This fed into whether there was a contract – considering that there was a promise of remuneration when the claimant undertook particular activities that pointed towards there being a contract. As this related to the claimant providing a personal service it was held that the claimant was actually a worker when he attended activities which he would be entitled to claim remuneration for.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
An interesting case relating to the status of volunteers. Many of us would see a volunteer as someone who does not fall within the categories of employment or worker yet the EAT is making it clear that the term does not instantly lead to that conclusion. Instead, the particular requirements of employment/worker status need to be examined. Where there is a right to remuneration that will point towards a contract and it will then be based upon the provision of personal service and mutuality of obligations in determining the status and the rights flowing therefrom.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
