English law recognises three key categories for individuals providing services: employees, non-employed workers, and the genuinely self‑employed. Each category carries distinct rights and obligations, both for the individual and the organisation engaging them. Some relationships fall neatly into one of these categories. However, where the position is less clear, recent case law reinforces the need to analyse the substance of the relationship, not simply the language used in documentation or policies.
A strong reminder of this principle comes from the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Maritime and Coastguard Agency v Groom [2026] EWCA Civ 6, in which the Court found that Coastguard Rescue Officers (‘CROs’) were workers. Although these individuals are not employees, they have key statutory rights (for example, to paid annual leave, and to receive National Minimum Wage).
The issue came to a head when Mr Groom was dismissed following a disciplinary process. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (‘MCA’) denied him the right to be accompanied at his appeal meeting, as this statutory right only applies to employees and workers. It argued that Mr Groom, a CRO, was a volunteer and therefore neither an employee nor a worker.
The MCA’s position was not without foundation. Its documents – including a handbook, code of conduct, and remuneration policy – expressly labelled CROs as ‘volunteers’. The MCA moreover denied that there was any ‘mutuality of obligation’ (a key feature that English courts look to when concluding that an engaged individual has worker status). Yet those same documents imposed certain expectations (for example, requiring CROs to obey reasonable instructions), and allowed them to claim hourly payments, complete with payslips, annual P60s, and P45s upon termination.
The Court of Appeal took a different view, finding that a worker contract arose on an assignment‑by‑assignment basis: on each occasion that a CRO attended an activity that carried a right to claim remuneration, they were a non-employed worker for the duration. Where there was a right to remuneration and an obligation to obey reasonable instructions, the Court of Appeal said it was “quite unreal” to deny that there was an intention to create legal relations.
The fact that payment was claimed rather than automatic, or that a CRO might choose not to enforce their entitlement, did not change the legal position. Nor did the freedom to decline future work. The Court of Appeal contrasted the situation with a genuine volunteer relationship, where the individual is solely reimbursed for their expenses, rather than receiving remuneration for their time.
Key Takeaways
This decision has particular resonance for organisations like emergency response units and rescue services for whom paid volunteering models are vital. If volunteers are paid for their time (rather than merely being reimbursed for expenses), worker status – and the rights that come with it – may arise.
However, the underlying principle is crucial to all employers: ultimately, it is the view that the court has of the actual working relationship, and the activities that take place within it – rather than the label ascribed to it by the parties – that is critical to deciding employment and worker status.
This decision is also a reminder that courts may take an atomised approach when considering employment and worker status, looking at the nature of the relationship on an assignment-by-assignment basis. It is therefore open for courts to decide that an individual may be a worker or employee during defined periods or assignments, even if there is no overarching employee or worker contract between the parties.
