Coastguard Rescue Officers across the country have won worker status after a historic legal battle, led by the former Station Officer of Bembridge Coastguard Rescue Team, Martin Groom.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal last week ruled that HM Coastguard officers are indeed workers and a contract existed between the parties in circumstances where coastguards had the right to be remunerated for their activities.
The hearing centred around former coastguard Martin Groom, whose membership was terminated in a meeting where a trade union official was not allowed to be present. Mr Groom claimed this was in breach of the Employment Relations Act (ERA) – but to rely on the act had to prove he was a worker and not a volunteer.
Mr Groom had served the Isle of Wight community for over 30 years, joining the service in 1985. He responded to thousands of call outs at all times of the day and night, working his way up through the ranks to lead the Bembridge team as Station Officer.
The outcome of the case has potential implications for the voluntary sector as a whole as it rows back on previous case law finding volunteers not to be workers in every case.
Gary Smith, GMB General Secretary, said:
“This is a landmark win for coastguards – and workers – everywhere.
“The public have the utmost respect for the brave men and women who keep our coasts safe. This ruling demands that their employers do the same.”
Article continues below this advertisement
Martin Groom, lead claimant and former HM Coastguard, said:
“This judgement brings a level of responsibility to HM coastguard to treat officer with a respect and dignity they haven’t been shown before.
“They now cannot terminate contracts on a whim – we are workers and deserve to be treated as such.
“I’d like to acknowledge the effort, time and input of GMB – without the union we would not have been able to fight the case.”
Whilst in this particular case, of which, we have no details of why Mr Groom was dismissed, this may be the right decision, it does however open up a plethora of possibilities for unsuitable volunteers to now sue their employers.
Many volunteers are highly motivated, intelligent people, who are a boon for businesses and charity funded organisations.
However many volunteers are people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and mental health issues. Often people from these groups, need constant supervision, to prevent accidents, or situations with the public, and, to be frank, are only employed for much of the time to give something back to society.
Shame if the vulnerable are now excluded from doing their ‘bit’.
A dangerous step in the wrong direction IMO.
Volunteers are not always the most suitable employees, hence the reason why a certain percentage are volunteering in the first instance rather than taking full status employment.
Many people choose having children instead of working full time to gain free or heavily subsidised housing and council tax , and if they choose to work just 16 hours a week, they also get their low wage made up via universal credits, so employers then sometimes need to rely on volunteers.
However their contributions to a business can be questionable. As only turn up when they feel like it and many are otherwise unemployable in a company who needs to make a profit due to personal issues.
His contract allowed Mr Groom to be remunerated for his activities within HM Coastguard, in other words the business is paying someone for the work they do as an employer/employee relationship. The volunteer work I am familiar with offers only reimbursement of travel or other expenses incurred by the volunteer, and on that basis this judgment should have no effect on the army of willing volunteers that contribute strongly to society.
Good, it’s the volunteers that do the actual work saving lives,Where as the managers etc are paid very well to be sat pushing bits of paper – sorry emails, meetings etc. Next week need Search and Rescue, RSPCA, Foster Carer’s etc to be respected same. Not asking for pay ,but to be treated with respect and fairness as are the only actual workers, without these organisations wouldn’t exist and many lives lost.
This sad individual has put his own misplaced pride ahead of the whole volunteering sector. His selfishness following his dismissal now sees the potential imposition of worker status on thousands of people who would prefer to remain volunteers. It’s a shame that he and the GMB have been allowed to spin this story as they have.
I rather think you are the sad individual. And what do you do voluntarily?
His twin is better looking !!!