Thousands of volunteers told they will no longer be paid for saving people’s lives by HM Coastguard
This has been forced through by employment law and is of a similar (But not identical ) model to CFAV Volunteer allowance.
The Coast Guard operate on a model of payment similar to RAFAC and the wider cadet forces. While there are differences, there are also striking similarities especially regarding the wording of what the payment is and is for. There has been a court case which has forced the Coast Guard to change it renumeration model and this has caused much disquiet in the ranks with some leaving straight away and many more threatening to do so. The sentiment expressed in the article mirrors much that is expressed in the corps.
If the finding is binding on all volunteer renumeration and not just the Coast Guard, similar changes could be coming our way with similar fall out.
Thousands of volunteers told they will no longer be paid for saving people’s lives by HM Coastguard
I have to say that it’s been my view for years that our status as ‘non-employees’ was open to challenge. I’m not that surprised. It would definitely be the end of me doing anything that I didn’t need to do as part of the day job as a CCF officer.
I’ve always held the position that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Any rate - I don’t do it for the VA, but the VA does form part of the larger contract with my family.
My volunteering weekends/weeks away wouldn’t be accepted by the Wife & kids without it and therefore like @tmmorris I would be limited to volunteering on parades only.
I suspect I am in the majority among CFAV’s with family at home.
5 Likes
That will be the same for the majority of us 
2 Likes
We’ve already been through this with the volunteer reserves, who now receive holiday pay (in the form of an extra quarter-day’s pay for every 2.5 days claimed) and the salary has been pensionable since 2015.
So, there are clearly other options to stopping VA.
2 Likes
I think the big issue is that the choice that faces organisations is that you have a formal employer / employee relationship and have to provide certain rights and support (which I think is the least they can do, to be honest), or they have to have a totally casual relationship with true volunteers, which means you can’t expect anything from them. Ever.
The moment any of us take on a leadership role, in my opinion, the organisation needs to accept that it has crossed that line.
To keep this organisation running, it requires people who do not volunteer casually, and that’s a requirement of this organisation’s model for success.
It requires people who likely regularly give an entire working week per month to the organisation at non-standard times. 2 1/2 hrs, twice per week. Plus prep and admin (certainly for a core role in unit) and you’re easily hitting 10hrs per week.
If the organisation acknowledges that it would all fall down without that, then we’re not really volunteers.
We cannot simply turn up when we like and drop it when we don’t feel like it. It requires significant commitment and sacrifice, and to imply that isn’t necessary does CFAVs a disservice, no matter how many volunteer agreements we sign.
I don’t have to turn up to my reserve duties and I’m not guaranteed any work, but that was still well-and-truly decided that we are in fact employees.
It’s the same for the coast guard having people who, once “active”, can’t simply walk off if their mood changes. Likewise, I cannot simply walk away from a building full of cadets. While engaged, I’m committed. I have strict duties and commitments I have to deliver on.
9 Likes
Specifically to the question of VA, it might not matter.
Money is only a part of what makes someone a worker rather than a true volunteer without obligation.
So if they’re seeking to avoid creating a formal obligation, getting rid of it may not move the needle, just as having us sign a volunteer agreement and trying to make it clear we’re under no obligation also doesn’t make me a volunteer.
If I don’t turn up, would I lose my appointment? Why do we make people NEP / put them on leave? There are so many questions that go into this and I don’t think there’s an easy option to avoid those obligations.
Not without a fundamental and practical re-writing of how the organisation wants to function.
1 Like
My concern is that the organisation doesn’t do this well. We’ve historically taken any kind of legal regulatory issues and just shut it all down for as long as it takes to build things totally up from scratch again (see: RPAS, BTEC, etc). If doing so is possible, it’s rarely expedient.
In the case of RPAS, it feels too early to tell but that seems to have worked out alright. That however was something that (while incredibly frustrating) the organisation could cope with a long pause. What people’s fundamental legal status in the organisation is however is not something pausible without utterly screwing everything we do.
I wonder what, if anything, would change for us non-VA-claiming folk?
1 Like
The issue is that if it’s about avoiding a worker relationship, it’s deeper than any payments and what a worker is called.
It’s also relevant that the expectations placed upon a Coast Guard volunteer when “on duty” very much constitute something beyond a true volunteer engagement, in my view.
If they can’t afford to have you walk away at will when on duty, are you really a true volunteer? That’s more of a casual work relationship.
We certainly can’t abandon a load of kids on a RAFAC event. Much like the reserves, it’s voluntary. But once we’ve turned up, we have inescapable obligations.
2 Likes
I’m part of UK SAR and didn’t realise Coastguard volunteers were paid as no one else is in LR or MR. It will cause them problems but will soon level out.
I think the same can be said if VA was removed, to be honest.
2 Likes
This has come about due to an employment appeals tribunal
In the full judgement it referenced case law of an ACF instructor who submitted an EAT but was found not to be a volunteer.
That relationship was found in groom vs Coastguard not to be the same.
This is because cadet forces receive a VA allowance that it not hourly based & is for uniform and other optional purchases.
The case of groom vs coastguard was based on a call out payment that was paid per hour for being on call to off set the personal inconvenience.
So no this does not affect VA & does not spell the end (or imply employment).
It’s the “on call” element that causes the issue not being on duty. The ability to walk away from an event abandoning a bunch of cadets is the same as scouts - not an employment obligation but a safeguarding obligation.
2 Likes
Full decision here
The ACF case is referenced in para 69
In Breakall v West Midlands Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association UKEAT/0372/10/RN, the Claimant was an Adult Instructor (AI) for the Army Cadet Force. His claim for disability discrimination failed because the Tribunal found that he was not an employee for the purposes of s.68 DDA 1995.
The Tribunal had found that there was no obligation on the part of the Respondent to provide any work for the Claimant to do, nor any obligation on the part of the Claimant to do any of the work provided. If the Claimant attended on any day he would generally expect to be remunerated and to be subject while attending to the instructions of his superior officer. The Tribunal regarded those obligations as an ”if” contract as described in Grayson. The Tribunal found that there was no mutuality of obligation such that the respondent was obliged to provide work to do and the claimant was obliged to undertake the work provided.
The case turned primarily on the question of whether there was an overarching contract. The claimant relied on James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd. [2007] ICR 1006, to argue that whatever the position when the Claimant was not at work, he was an employee when he was at work. The EAT briefly considered the argument but rejected it on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the factual findings of the Tribunal (paragraph 37).
1 Like