The Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal decision that an unpaid volunteer with no contract was not protected by the (now repealed) Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) does not cover voluntary activity.
The Court of Appeal has held that a self-employed GP who provided hair restoration services for a private clinic was a "worker" for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that, where a party asserts that a written term does not reflect the reality of the agreement, tribunals and courts may look outside the terms to determine the true nature of the agreement.
In X v Mid Sussex Citizens’ Advice Bureau and others [2011] EWCA Civ 28 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a volunteer at a Citizens’ Advice Bureau was not an employee for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and could not therefore claim disability discrimination when she was asked to stop her voluntary work.
In Tilson v Alstom Transport [2011] IRLR 169 CA, the Court of Appeal held that there was no basis for the employment tribunal to imply a contract of employment between an agency worker and the end user. The fact that the claimant had rejected offers of just such a permanent contract on more than one occasion was a powerful factor pointing away from an employment relationship.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that a paid volunteer is not an employee for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 where there is no mutuality of obligation between the parties.