How do I write a volunteer agreement that is not a contract?

England and Wales: This page sets out the position in full. Scotland: the same position, with no difference in principle — the same employment statutes apply. Northern Ireland: the same status test in separate legislation, word for word, so the same drafting advice holds — but the cases it rests on are persuasive there rather than binding.

The “not a contract” clause is evidence, not a shield

A volunteer agreement’s “not legally binding” line is evidence of what the charity intended. It does not stop a tribunal finding a contract if the substance is a job. Almost every template carries the line, and it looks like the protection. The cases show both halves, and the same statutory test applies in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This step is for the trustees or volunteer coordinator drafting the agreement, once the role is settled as a volunteer role and its role description is written. No regulator, including the Charity Commission, OSCR and CCNI, publishes a model one.

• With the clause. In X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau, the agreement was headed “This agreement is binding in honour only and is not a contract of employment or legally binding.” The tribunal found no contract. The heading was consistent with that finding — because the substance matched it. The volunteer had missed sessions without objection or sanction.
• Without the clause. In South East Sheffield CAB v Grayson, the Employment Tribunal was “impressed” that the agreement had no such clause, and found employee status. The Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed that on other grounds. It called the missing clause “of at least some relevance” but “not by itself conclusive”.

So leaving it out is used against you. Putting it in does not save an arrangement whose substance is a job. A contract, for employment status, is an arrangement in which each side gives something of value and could enforce what the other promised. Courts look at the parties’ real obligations, not the label on the document — the principle from Autoclenz v Belcher.

A page that promises the clause is protective is selling false comfort. Put it in, and then make the rest of the agreement and the way you run the role consistent with it.

What the agreement should leave out

Each of these is a factor the cases treat as pushing towards worker or employee status.

What it can say

A volunteer agreement is a written statement of what the charity offers a volunteer and what it hopes for in return. It does not create legal obligations on either side. Written in that register, it supports the status decision rather than undermining it.

Most agreements cover what the charity will provide. That means induction, support, a named contact, reimbursement of actual expenses, and which insurance covers volunteers (see insuring and risk-assessing your volunteers). They also cover what the charity hopes the volunteer will do. Then they say how either side can end the arrangement, and that it is not intended to be binding.

This guide’s suggested wording for that last point is below. It is good practice, not authority. No official source prescribes it.

This agreement describes what we hope for and what we will offer. It is not intended to create a legal relationship or an employment relationship, and either of us can end the arrangement at any time.

A template is planned: Volunteer agreement (planned).

There is no official template

The research behind this guide found no model volunteer agreement from any regulator or government department. Many charities assume the template they downloaded has official standing; none does. GOV.UK itself points onward to NCVO, a sector body.

NCVO’s material is useful, but it is sector guidance, not law, and this guide treats it that way. A volunteer policy is a different document again; whether you need one is answered on adopt a volunteer policy.

So whatever template you start from, read it against the table of what to leave out. And because the step carries status risk, the record behind this page recommends a solicitor’s review of any template before it goes live.

What this page rests on

This page applies two statutory definitions: Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230 and the Equality Act 2010 s.83 gate. Both were checked at source in this guide’s August verification pass. Their contract-gate reasoning is sound.

The two cases were not re-read in that pass. They are recorded from the official Supreme Court and Employment Appeal Tribunal texts. That is good provenance, but the quotations above have not been independently checked a second time. If you are relying on a specific phrase in a dispute, read the judgment itself.

Northern Ireland

The status test is the same. Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 defines employee and worker in wording identical to the Great Britain Act. So the drafting advice above applies in full.

Grayson, X v Mid Sussex and Autoclenz are England and Wales authority. A Northern Ireland industrial tribunal will treat them as persuasive, not binding. Discrimination law in Northern Ireland is also a separate set of instruments, not the Equality Act 2010 — see deciding whether this is a volunteer role or a job.

Scotland needs no separate treatment: employment law is reserved, and the same Acts apply.

With the agreement drafted, the next step is to recruit, check and induct the volunteer.

Common mistake: treating the “this is not a contract” clause as a shield

It is the one line every template carries, so it looks like the protection. It is evidence of intention. In X v Mid Sussex it sat consistently with a finding of no contract because the substance matched it.

Common mistake: leaving the no-legal-relations statement out altogether

It can feel unfriendly, or the template never had one. In Grayson its absence impressed the first tribunal, which found employee status, and the appeal tribunal still thought it relevant.

Common mistake: applying the staff disciplinary and grievance procedure to volunteers

One procedure for everyone seems fairer and simpler. A binding disciplinary procedure was relied on at first instance in Grayson to find employee status. It is a medium-risk factor.

Common mistake: writing anything beyond actual, evidenced cost into the expenses clause

A round sum is easier to administer. Genuine reimbursement was “entirely unsurprising” and not payment in Grayson. A payment that does more than reimburse is pay on HMRC’s own test, and a high-risk factor.

Worked example

Tollgate Youth CIO adapts an agreement it found online. It is headed “Volunteer Contract” and says volunteers “must give notice before leaving”.

Test every clause against the table. The title and the mandatory notice term are both markers.

Now compare the two cases. In X v Mid Sussex an express “binding in honour only” heading sat with a finding of no contract. In Grayson the missing clause was held against the bureau at first instance.

Then ask the Step 1 question: whether either side would have a legal remedy against the other.

Tollgate retitles the document “Volunteer agreement”. It replaces “must” with “we hope”. It removes any consequence beyond ending the arrangement and limits expenses to actual cost. Then it adds a statement that the document is not intended to be legally binding.

In the covering note to the board, Tollgate records that the statement is evidence of intention, not a guarantee. The note also records that the wording is good practice, not a model from any official source.