A story that caught our eye this week is that of Tom Boyd, a 27-year-old autistic man who volunteered at a branch of Waitrose for over four years, clocking up more than 600 hours stacking shelves and moving stock. His mother had asked if he could be offered a few paid hours In recognition of his work.

Waitrose head office responded by halting his volunteering, citing the reason that they were worried about the implications if he were to join the payroll.

At first glance, the reaction seems cold and harsh, and Waitrose certainly received some flak on social media and forums. However, from a business compliance perspective, we have some sympathy with what Waitrose did.

The tragedy here is that there is no provision in UK employment law for a middle ground. No mechanism to pay a token allowance or stipend to volunteers with disabilities who contribute meaningfully but cannot fulfil the full duties of a role independently.

There are some Government backed schemes and initiatives available that try to bridge the gap and Mr Boyd may have been utilising one of these or possibly a charity run scheme. But, in terms of how employers must treat workers in such situations, it’s pretty much a binary choice:

• Either maintain a strictly unpaid volunteer relationship, or
• Employ the individual fully under all statutory obligations.

This rigid framework means that businesses, large or small, must take steps to protect themselves. Waitrose almost certainly ended Tom’s volunteer arrangement to avoid a potential compliance time bomb. It may look heartless, but the alternative could have been a financial and reputational disaster.

In the UK, a volunteer does not have the same employment rights as a paid worker. Volunteers, by definition, will work for free and so are not entitled to the minimum wage or many of the protections afforded to employees. The law draws a clear line: if an individual is paid (or becomes a “worker” or “employee”), minimum wage and employment status protections apply, such as working time regulations, obligations around health & safety and access to sick pay.

Furthermore, it is our understanding that, in Mr Boyd’s case, he required constant supervision in his volunteer role and this would most likely extend to an employed position too if he was offered a permanent role. This raises the concept of “reasonable adjustments” under the Equality Act 2010.

Without knowing the full details, it is probably unlikely that Waitrose would see providing constant supervision as being a reasonable adjustment to make.

There’s no denying the value of work for an individual’s mental health and sense of purpose. According to the Office for National Statistics, more than 2.8 million working-age people are now economically inactive due to long-term health conditions, a figure that has risen sharply since the pandemic. Individuals without the structure, social contact or purpose that a job brings, are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety, underlining the vital link between work and wellbeing.

However, this case illustrates the often unworkable balance employers face between inclusion and compliance. Businesses that want to do the right thing risk being penalised by a system that provides them with no safe way to do it.

Let’s be frank; if a small business found itself in Waitrose’s position, would it have the legal expertise or HR capacity to navigate the risks? Would managers know what legislation says, what constitutes “employment,” and what the consequences of getting it wrong could be? It’s a treacherously grey area, and that’s where the real danger lies.

At the end of the day: while it is deeply disappointing that Tom Boyd’s volunteering role was terminated when he asked to be paid, the situation highlights a lack of legislative flexibility rather than a lack of goodwill. Ultimately, businesses need to make money and so must ensure that any efforts to be charitable and support individuals, doesn’t expose the business to risk.

Interestingly, whilst writing this post, it has come to light that in response to the news story, the local Asda store has offered Mr Boyd a position comprising two, five-hour paid shifts per week. This is a very generous offer from Asda who, one assumes, has made the necessary risk assessments and are comfortable making any required reasonable adjustments.

In the meantime, perhaps this story will inspire somebody in Government to propose legislation that enables people like Mr Boyd to work and earn fair compensation for the contribution that they make, whilst benefiting from the positives that having a job brings.

At HR Champions Ltd, we strive to ensure that managers understand the boundaries. Our Mental Health for Managers course helps managers support wellbeing while remaining compliant. Our Mental Health First Aider training builds understanding and empathy in nominated employees, and our ILM-accredited Leadership and Management courses give managers the fundamental grounding in employment law they need to avoid costly oversights or mistakes.

When good intentions meet bad legislation, knowledge is the only real protection.

Contact HR Champions today to learn how we can help your managers build confidence, capability, and compliance through our comprehensive suite of training solutions. Call us on 01452 331331, or complete the contact form.