Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant applied in April 2006 to volunteer at the Defendant, a Citizens Advice Bureau ("CAB"), intending to volunteer 4 to 5 hours weekly. The Appellant, possessing legal qualifications, sought the position to gain experience for establishing a business. She signed a volunteer agreement described as binding in honour only, not constituting a contract of employment. The Appellant underwent a nine-month training period and performed various advisory duties, with no strict attendance enforcement. Subsequently, the Appellant was asked to cease volunteering, which she alleges was due to disability discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal initially rejected claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act") on grounds that the Appellant was not "employed" due to absence of a contract and dismissed claims relating to work placement and arrangements for offering employment. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") considered whether the volunteer role fell within the meaning of "occupation" under the Framework Directive 2000/78/EEC, but upheld the lower tribunal's findings, rejecting the claims. The present appeal concerns whether the Appellant, as a volunteer, is protected from disability discrimination under domestic law or the Framework Directive.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a volunteer worker falls within the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended, when read with the Framework Directive 2000/78/EEC.
- If not protected by domestic legislation, whether the volunteer can rely on the Framework Directive to assert directly enforceable rights against a private party.
- Whether the volunteer post constitutes an "occupation" or "employment" within the meaning of the Framework Directive.
- Whether the arrangements made by the Defendant for volunteers constitute arrangements for determining to whom employment should be offered under section 4(1)(a) of the 1995 Act.
- Whether the volunteer post amounts to vocational training within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Framework Directive and section 14C of the 1995 Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The volunteer position is an "occupation" under the Framework Directive, thereby attracting protection from disability discrimination.
- Alternatively, the volunteer post is a relevant arrangement under section 4(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, as it is part of the process determining who should be offered employment as full-time advisors.
- Domestic legislation should be interpreted in conformity with the Directive, or the Directive should have direct horizontal effect to protect volunteers.
Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Submissions
- The volunteer falls within the EU concepts of "employment" or "occupation" despite lack of contract or remuneration.
- The volunteer role constitutes "vocational training" under Article 3(1)(b) of the Framework Directive, and the Appellant was denied access to such training.
- Broad and purposive interpretation of the Directive is necessary to protect disabled volunteers and promote their integration into the labour market.
Respondent and Secretary of State's Arguments
- No contractual obligation and absence of remuneration exclude volunteers from the scope of the Directive and domestic discrimination law.
- The terms "occupation" and "employment" do not extend to unpaid volunteering.
- The Directive's scope is limited to economic activities; voluntary work is not a means of economic activity.
- Historical and institutional evidence shows that volunteers were not intended to be covered by the Directive.
- Allowing volunteers within the Directive would create legal uncertainty and unduly burden voluntary organisations.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College and Others [2004] ICR 1328 |
Definition of "worker" in EU law as genuine and effective activity with remuneration. |
Used to contrast the Appellant’s unpaid voluntary role with the concept of "worker". |
| Kurz v Land Baden-Württemberg [2002] ECR I-10691 |
Clarification of "worker" concept in EU law and its application. |
Supported the interpretation of "worker" requiring remuneration and genuine activity. |
| Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg [1987] ICR 483 |
Seminal case defining "worker" under EU law. |
Referenced for the foundational understanding of "worker". |
| Wippel v Peek and Cloppenburg GmbH & Co KG [2005] ICR 1604 |
Emphasis on receipt of remuneration in defining "worker". |
Reinforced the remuneration requirement for "worker" status. |
| Mangold v Helm [2005] ECR 1-9981 |
Horizontal direct effect of EU fundamental rights derived from directives. |
Considered but ultimately not applied to extend protection to the Appellant. |
| Kucukdeveci v Swedex PNBH [2010] EUECJ C-340/08; [2010] IRLR 346 |
Direct enforceability of EU directives against private parties. |
Recognised as potentially applicable but not decisive in this case. |
| Bruce v Leeds CAB (EAT/1355/2001) |
Volunteers at CAB not considered "employees" under domestic law. |
Supported the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that the Appellant was not employed. |
| South East Sheffield CAB v Grayson [2004] IRLR 353 |
Similar to Bruce, reinforcing non-employee status of CAB volunteers. |
Supported the Employment Tribunal’s findings on employment status. |
| R (Payir) v Secretary of State for Employment [2006] ICR 188 |
Definition of "occupation" as genuine activity without remuneration or contract. |
Adopted by the Appellant to support the claim that volunteering is an occupation. |
| Coleman v Attridge Law [2008] ICR 1128 |
Recognition of the importance of equal treatment and dignity in EU law. |
Referenced to underline the fundamental rights basis of the Directive. |
| Jivraj v Hashwani [2010] IRLR 797 |
Interpretation of the Directive’s scope concerning economic activity and occupation. |
Used to support the view that voluntary work is not a means of economic activity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the scope of the Framework Directive and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, focusing on whether the Appellant’s voluntary role fell within "employment" or "occupation". The court acknowledged the fundamental importance of non-discrimination principles and the desirability of encouraging disabled volunteering but emphasized the limited scope of the Directive to labour market activities involving economic activity.
Applying established EU case law, the court held that "worker" requires remuneration and a genuine and effective activity, excluding unpaid volunteers. The concept of "occupation" was interpreted as relating to professions or categories of jobs involving access restrictions or qualifications, not individual unpaid posts. The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that volunteering was an arrangement for determining employment offers, finding the primary purpose of volunteering was to provide services supporting the CAB’s charitable aims, not to serve as a recruitment pool.
The court also dismissed the vocational training argument, holding that the voluntary role was not primarily for training but for service provision. Consideration was given to the possibility of direct effect of the Directive, but the court found no sufficient basis to extend protection to the Appellant under EU law. The court noted the rejection by EU institutions of proposals to include unpaid volunteering within the Directive’s scope, supporting the conclusion that volunteers are excluded.
Overall, the court applied a purposive but restrained interpretation of the Directive, balancing fundamental rights with legislative intent and practical implications for the voluntary sector.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the appeal.
The holding confirms that unpaid volunteers at organisations such as the Defendant Citizens Advice Bureau do not fall within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 or the Framework Directive 2000/78/EEC as persons in "employment" or "occupation." Consequently, volunteers are not protected from disability discrimination under this legislation. The decision clarifies the limits of anti-discrimination protections in the voluntary sector, affirming that the Directive does not extend to unpaid voluntary work. No new precedent was set beyond the application of established principles, and the ruling primarily affects the parties by denying the Appellant’s claim.