Volunteers' contractual status

Case 4: The facts

Julie Grayson, one of 11 paid employees at a Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), brought a discrimination claim under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The CAB argued that the DDA did not apply because it had fewer than 15 employees.

There were seven volunteer advisers working for the CAB. Grayson argued that they too were "employees", bringing the total to 18 and enabling her to proceed with her claim.

(Although employers with fewer than 15 employees are no longer exempt from the DDA, this case is still useful in relation to volunteers' employment status.)

The ruling

The EAT held that, for a volunteer to be an "employee", s/he must be contractually obliged to undertake work personally in exchange for some "consideration". (This is the legal term given to something of value - in an employment contract, usually salary or wages - that is brought to an agreement in order to make it a legally binding contract.) In return, the employer must have a contractual obligation to provide work.

The volunteers were not obliged to work a minimum number of hours per week, and there was no contractual relationship of employer and employee - the volunteers' written agreement simply set out the CAB's expectations of them. They could withdraw their services at any time, with or without notice, and there would be no breach of contract.

Additionally, the EAT did not consider that the provision of training could amount to "consideration" - but the lack of legal obligations was the crucial factor in this case.

SE Sheffield CAB v Grayson [2004] IRLR 353