Simply, the MCA should have known [Coastguard volunteers no longer paid for callouts]. It’s always been clear that the HMRC would class a volunteer who was paid any remuneration whatsoever as an employee and seek to recover Employers’ National Insurance, Employee’s NI, and Income Tax. Any such suggestion of payment would also mean that the volunteer has the right to be enrolled in a pension scheme. They’d also come under minimum wage legislation.

But it wasn’t the HMRC who discovered a transgression. It was an employment tribunal, and subsequently the Court of Appeal. A Coastguard Rescue Officer took the MCA to tribunal, claiming they were an employee, and won.

Clarity

The law has been clear for many years, and is getting clearer with recent and planned legislation.

So what’s it about? Today, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency announced that volunteer Coastguard Rescue Officers will not longer be paid for responding to callouts and training exercises.

The MCA should have known. And there’s no point in MPs complaining. Legislation clarifying employee status is going through the House. It’s easy to understand the MCA’s predicament though, and the reason for their decision. To move CROs to the status of employee and award pay of £11 per hour (or minimum wage if greater) when on callout will be costly for the MCA.

So what are the MCA’s options?

Firstly, it could reaffirm the CROs as volunteers. This following sort of definition would then apply:

…the provision of effort and engagement in activities, for the benefit of others, and
without financial or other economic remuneration. In volunteering, the volunteer has
a free choice to get involved or not. The effort is provided by the volunteer when
it suits them. And without the volunteer’s involvement, the venture in which they
participate would fail.

This definition is from our recent book. The critical part relevant to the MCA today is that there must not be any financial or other economic remuneration. The rules are bent often. Many Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) believe that they are able to reward volunteers in other ways, such as providing accommodation. But that too is an economic remuneration. We cover in our book the whole business of what can and can’t be used as reward.

No pay, no obligation

In this definition, volunteers can’t be placed under obligation and strictly they must attend when it suits them and not when the CSO demands. That does not exactly fit with with the concept of a CRO or other rescue volunteer on a callout. Such further definitions might be future problems for the MCA. But that’s not for now.

Secondly, many believe that a payment like £11 per hour when actually engaged in volunteer work is simply recovery of out of pocket expenses. For many it’s an easy argument. When someone is away from their mainstream job volunteering, they will not be paid. And they will inevitably incur expenses. Therefore they will be out of pocket and should be paid. Sadly it doesn’t work like that. In the eyes of the law, the volunteer will simply have moved from one employment to another.

Importantly, it’s not for the CSO to determine who is and who is not a volunteer. Ultimately it’s for the courts, and government agencies like HMRC.

Thirdly, they could move the CROs to zero-hours contracts. But those are contracts of employment and all the employment related obligations such as minimum wage, holiday, and pension become obligatory. And in any case, the Government is currently consulting on scrapping zero-hours contracts. Defined hours employment contracts (that unions want to have replace zero-hours) are unlikely to be workable for an employee who occasionally attends a callout.

No option

That leaves the MCA no option but to return to a bona fide volunteer arrangement. In this case, no economic remuneration can be made. Directly incurred and documented out of pocket expenses are permissible. This covers payment for mileage from home to the rescue base and back at the end of the shout, for example, but nothing else. The list of what can’t paid for or provided is long, extending even to certain forms of training not directly related to rescues.

It’s a minefield. The distinction between employee and volunteer is clear. But it’s easy for CSOs to find themselves slipping out of volunteering and into employment. Strictly the no-remuneration rule means that that volunteers must have their own private financial means to cover them when volunteering. That will likely affect who, and how many will volunteer. Volunteering is on the wane generally, and this may simply accelerate change.

Future of emergency services

CSOs like the RNLI, the volunteer element of the MCA, and mountain rescue teams are finding their workload rising. We may find that those organisations must become employers. In that case their costs will have to be covered by central or local government (rather than by donations) and those costs will add to the nation's tax bill. Many countries have government funded rescue services. Perhaps it’s time the UK moved that way too?

We cover this and many other issues associated with engaging volunteers. Our book, Achieving with Volunteers: managing those who give their time and effort freely is out on the 2nd July,