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 applies only 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...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMitAFBVV95cUxQZU11Uk9YU0tadnFhUG00ZmxR...