Volunteers without contracts not covered by workers’ anti-discrimination legislation

26 January

Judges examining the legal rights of volunteers have decided that unpaid volunteers without contracts are not covered by workers’ anti-discrimination legislation. 

The judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal today (26 January 2011) in the case of X vs Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau.

It was alleged that the CAB had discriminated against X – a volunteer caseworker - on grounds of disability , after X was allegedly asked to cease volunteering for the organisation.

The claimant argued that she was covered by anti-discrimination legislation which covers workers – namely the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the European Framework Directive. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the legislation did not cover X , because X did not have a contract with the CAB and was unpaid.

The test case has been closely watched by organisations that rely on the UK’s army of volunteers which number tens of millions. 73% of adults took part in volunteering activity in 2007/8. Had the Court of Appeal backed X then hundreds of organisations would have had to reassess the terms under which volunteers are used.

Counsel Jason Galbraith-Marten from leading employment and discrimination chambers Cloisters (whose barristers Paul Michell and Ed Williams represented the CAB) said: 

“This is a significant victory for the voluntary sector. This is because much of the sector is reliant on volunteers, and cannot shoulder the financial burden which enhanced rights for volunteers such as X would bring. 

“Many organisations that use the services of volunteers are small-scale, reliant on charitable contributions, and unable to function at all without ‘voluntary workers’. To give new rights to the millions of volunteers who work without pay and/or a contract would therefore make it impossible for such organisations. The need to make adjustments for the disabled, and the cost of litigation (successful or otherwise) which would be generated by the extension of anti-discrimination rights, would be too great a financial burden for many of them to bear.”