Exploring the Issue of Volunteer Rights

It’s hard to discuss this topic with a clear focus, with all the stories and the associated passion of those involved. The thoughts of ‘how could that happen?’, ‘well that’s awful!’, and ‘I know of someone who…’ keep interrupting strategic thought. For example, reading Third Sector’s report of the York Citizen’s Advice volunteer dismissal case (October 2009), you would feel encouraged that the organisation held an independent review, which identified management and governance shortcomings, and made recommendations to address them. The resultant outcome was that disgruntled volunteers returned to the organisation, now much more gruntled(!). “Hurrah!” was my response, volunteers have a right of redress by going public on an issue, or by obtaining support from other volunteers and going ‘on strike’. I reflected that I’d heard many stories of ‘volunteer solidarity’ over the years from all parts of the voluntary sector, and concluded that the world of volunteering has become an environment where volunteers can have they voices heard and will be determinedly creative about how they will ensure this occurs! The Press, the Internet, friends, family and the local community provide ample opportunities for right of redress for the downtrodden volunteer. However, one of the comments made in response to Third Sector’s article stated “It's a blessing that, in this case, there was a national body that could intervene. There are many small charities, I would suggest, whose conduct is unaccountable. The regulatory body, the Charity Commission, are only interested in fraud. Mismanagement and sloppy governance go unquestioned.” Now I’m dragged from strategic thought into a swift depression, thinking that no matter what we do, the situation will always be awful! Especially when you consider there are approximately 145,000 of the 171,000 charities in the UK classified as ‘micro’ or ‘small’ (The UK Civil Society Almanac, 2009). However, the above statement throws a curve-ball, in that it encourages people to think the sector is riddled with incompetence and bad practice; but it’s a statement based on subjective views and also preconceived ideas about what is effective management and governance. This constitutes first-rate scare-mongering and is particularly out of step with current volunteer management research findings (Stevens and Hill 2011), which highlight the importance of not forcing the ‘gold standard’ of volunteer management on volunteer run organisations (which tend to be the smaller charities). [NB Stevens and Hill include the volunteer management National Occupational Standards (NOS) and Investing in Volunteers (IiV) as examples of the ‘gold standard’ that has become popular in ‘paid staff’ led organisations]. So, should we conclude that we should ‘live and let live’ and allow the natural rules of human behaviour to create an environment where volunteering can ‘live breathe and have its being’? In exploring a more interventionist approach there is much to be learnt from the development of modern employment legislation (in the UK from the 1960s and 70s). The quote below from the House of Lords Select Committee (1972) makes the purpose of this legislation quite clear: “Nobody believes that legislation by itself can eradicate overnight a whole range of attitudes which are rooted in custom, and are, for that very reason, often unchallenged because unrecognised. But if the law cannot change attitudes overnight, it can, and does, effect change slowly.” So employees in the UK were given a vehicle to take their employers to task, and in 2009-10 the number of accepted employment tribunal claims was 236,100 representing an increase of 56% on 2008-09 (The Tribunals Service, 2010). This is quite a sobering rise, which tends to suggest that either employers are getting worse as management or employees are getting better at enacting their disgruntlement!... (or both). Also, In the UK, the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) has nearly 4 times the number of formal grievances than the public sector, and nearly 6 times more than the private sector. It is widely recognised that the VCS has limited people management and HR capability, and when combined with a passionate workforce, both frustrations and unmet expectations give rise to higher incidents of negative conflict. So with this landscape, it’s not surprising there were challenges in reporting recommendations from the Volunteer Rights Enquiry – volunteers are no less passionate that paid staff and chaos was potentially waiting to ensue! However, one key point here is that for the last 40 years HR professionals have had the challenge of developing systems and processes that seek to engage the discretionary effort of employees, whilst seeking to avoid the bear-pits of employment legislation for all of their professional lives. This experience and expertise (both practitioner and academic) would have been invaluable in supporting the discussions of the Volunteer Rights Inquiry. [NB I wouldn’t have been surprised if the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development had seen this as an opportunity to contribute gratis]. One final thought is that as Rob’s commentary highlights, it’s not the time politically to create a Volunteer Complaints Commissioner. However, does that mean we need to wait for a political climate where there isn’t a government taskforce on cutting red tape seeking to “make it easier to run charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises” by “reducing bureaucratic burdens …and freeing up more time and resources for these organisations to make a difference in their communities.”? (Department for Business Innovation and Skills). This last quote makes it quite clear that the world is changing, and if this topic is ever formally revisited, it will be done in a vastly different landscape (probably with new case law guiding thinking and practice). For example, today The Trade Union Congress (TUC) are ‘slamming’ government proposals to extend the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 1 year to 2 years (hrmagazine.co.uk). The TUC submission says: "The proposals to restrict protection against unfair dismissal will not only hit young people and female part-time employees the hardest, but will also open the door to more discrimination claims, creating confusion for staff and employers alike….There is no credible evidence to show that restricting access to justice actually helps our economy and it is disappointing that ministers seem so keen to boost bad employment practices.” The submission concludes: "If the Government is serious about improving the tribunal system, it should concentrate much more on encouraging disputes to be resolved before they get to court." These developments are of fundamental importance to the issue of ‘Volunteer Rights’. They go to the heart of the principles of natural justice, and whatever eventually ensues will undoubtedly impact on the ‘Volunteer Rights’ debate. Once again, the people involved trying to reduce negative conflict in this developing situation will be HR professionals. So I would offer two conclusions: (i) The principle of ‘live and let live’ provides a pragmatic way for volunteers to raise issues with volunteer-involving organisations in the current environment. (ii) If the debate is ever formally revisited, experienced HR practitioners and academics would provide invaluable input as part of the steering group, ensuring the wheel is redesigned, not reinvented.

An interesting development in the news today, where a the UK Olympics Committee has agreed a financial settlement with a volunteer (to compensate for Disability Discrimination. http://bit.ly/ViuGZs I made a tentative suggestion in my response above that the world of volunteering has become an environment where volunteers can have they voices heard...with the Press, the Internet, friends, family and the local community provide ample opportunities for right of redress for the downtrodden volunteer. It appears this one volunteer has managed to tap into this environment fairly successfully!