Volunteers at festivals: When volunteering becomes an employment relationship – and how organisers can avoid this

Without volunteers, many music and cultural festivals simply wouldn’t take place. They set up the venue, decorate it, look after guests and tidy up afterwards. As a ‘thank you’, they usually receive a festival ticket, meals and a pitch on the campsite. Whilst this may seem straightforward, it is a legal grey area, as authorities and courts may classify voluntary work as a disguised employment relationship or as unauthorised supply of labour. This can prove costly for organisers and result in fines.

The following article highlights what is key when distinguishing between voluntary work and an employment relationship, what liability risks exist, what forms of remuneration are permissible, and what framework conditions organisers should bear in mind when designing a volunteer programme.

What is this about?

Essentially, the question is this: taken as a whole, is there an exchange of labour for economically relevant consideration, or is it a case of voluntary work motivated by altruistic reasons and carried out without remuneration?

Under Section 611a of the German Civil Code (BGB), an employee is obliged to perform work in the service of another person, subject to instructions and external control, in a relationship of personal dependence. The decisive factor is an overall assessment of all the circumstances. If the actual performance of the work indicates that an employment relationship exists, the wording of the contract is irrelevant. Just because the term ‘voluntary work’ appears on paper does not necessarily mean that is the case.

Legal background: What constitutes a genuine voluntary role

The guiding ruling of the Federal Social Court (BSG) of 16 August 2017 (B 12 KR 14/16 R) is decisive. According to this ruling, voluntary work is characterised by its idealistic aims and the fact that it is unpaid.

Instructions and fixed procedures do not automatically turn voluntary work into an employment relationship, as no organisation could function without them. In particular, task-related instructions – such as where materials are located or by when a task is to be completed – do not pose a problem. The situation only becomes critical in the case of person-specific instructions, i.e. when it is precisely specified who is to do what, where and when. The Munich Regional Labour Court (LAG) has illustrated this clearly using the example of the voluntary fire service: ‘fighting fires on a whim’ would leave firefighting to chance (Munich Regional Labour Court judgement of 26 November 2014 – 10 Sa 471/14).

Nor does an expense allowance preclude voluntary work, provided it compensates for actual or flat-rate expenses and does not constitute covert payment for the work. What matters here is not how the individual volunteer perceives it, but how it appears objectively. This is more than a mere formality, as volunteers are exempt from the Minimum Wage Act (MiLoG) (Section 22(3) MiLoG) – but only if the role is genuinely voluntary.

As a rule of thumb: the higher the total value of the benefits and the more they are structured or communicated as consideration for specific hours of work, the more likely it is that an employment relationship exists. Conversely, the more clearly they appear to be symbolic recognition, and the more the voluntary nature and idealistic character of the role are emphasised, the more likely it is to be a voluntary role.

An overview of the key distinguishing criteria:

The recommended structure: the ‘hybrid model’

If, for example, a festival limited liability company (GmbH) directly employs volunteers, there is no sound basis for voluntary work, meaning that there is regularly an exchange of ‘work for a ticket’ between the GmbH and the volunteer – and thus an employment relationship. The situation is different for a registered association, as here participation is based on membership and serves the association’s purpose. According to the case law of the Federal Social Court, this clearly argues against an employment relationship (BSG, judgement of 16 August 2017 – B 12 KR 14/16 R).

The most legally secure approach is therefore a combination of both: a registered association (e. V.) organises and coordinates the volunteers independently on the basis of membership of the association. In contrast, the GmbH/UG runs the festival as a commercial venture and is supported by the association under a cooperation agreement. This removes the direct link: ‘You work, so you get a ticket’. The ticket thus becomes a means of participating in the association’s purpose rather than a disguised form of remuneration.

For this model to work, however, the association must not be a mere front. On the one hand, this applies to the volunteers, as they must be genuine members of the association; simply ‘joining just for the ticket’ is not sufficient. Secondly, it applies to the club itself, as it must coordinate the volunteers directly and must not receive any payment per volunteer hour from the limited company, as the collaboration would otherwise resemble the supply of temporary workers.

Tickets, catering, merchandise: what is permitted?

The festival ticket plays a key role, as can be illustrated by a calculation: a volunteer helps out for 8 hours on each of 3 festival days. Based on the minimum wage, this amounts to around EUR 333.00. The ticket, by contrast, costs only EUR 200.00. Whilst this could be interpreted as an expense allowance, a regulatory authority might view it as payment for work carried out, with the consequence that the full minimum wage is owed, as the ticket does not count towards this. The decisive factor is whether the ticket appears to be given in return for the hours worked. It becomes particularly problematic if the ticket is linked to a specific work requirement, along the lines of ‘You’ll only get the ticket if you work X hours’. The same applies in reverse: anyone who withdraws the ticket from volunteers in the event of absences is thereby making it clear that it is given in return for work. Such sanctions are a strong indication of an employment relationship and should therefore be avoided. It is therefore ideal to structure the ticket as a prerequisite for access to the voluntary work rather than as consideration. The more closely access to the assignment is linked to the work itself – for example, only for the days on which the volunteer actually helps out, and not transferable – the more the ticket appears to be a ‘tool of the trade’ rather than a wage.

Furthermore, providing meals during working hours is generally unproblematic, as it is a necessary part of the assignment. The same applies to basic accommodation or camping, provided it serves the purpose of enabling the volunteer to carry out their duties (i.e. no glamping or VIP lodges). Crew T-shirts are also functional and harmless; however, in the hybrid model, they should ideally be provided by the association – designed as the association’s own T-shirt – rather than by the limited company (to ensure a clear distinction between volunteers and employees of the limited company).

Which activities are suitable

Tasks that are largely voluntary in nature, with no fixed hours and no responsibility for ensuring a specific outcome is achieved, are not critical. These include awareness-raising, information points, decoration, clean-up or an open construction team for setting up and dismantling.

Tasks in the medium-risk category include kitchen duties, artist support or assisting with stage management. Here, volunteers should be able to choose their own ‘preferred slots’ and cancel at any time, whilst the core team remains responsible.

Tasks particularly unsuitable for volunteers include the box office and ticket sales, the bar, security (subject to authorisation under Section 34a of the Trade Regulation Act), traffic management in public areas and admission control at the festival entrance.

When volunteering goes wrong: risks and liability consequences of poor organisation

The volunteer becomes an employee

The most obvious scenario is that a public authority or a court classifies the activity as an employment relationship. In that case, the volunteer is entitled to the minimum wage. Furthermore, employee protection regulations apply, including, where applicable, protection against unfair dismissal.

The exemption from the Minimum Wage Act for volunteers presupposes that the work is genuinely voluntary. If a festival limited company directly deploys volunteers, this is generally not the case. The festival ticket, which was intended as a ‘thank you’, then appears in retrospect to be (insufficient) pay, and the minimum wage must be paid retrospectively. The value of the ticket cannot generally be taken into account, as the minimum wage must be paid in cash. Benefits in kind, such as tickets, meals or accommodation, are not counted towards this (Federal Labour Court [BAG], judgement of 25 May 2016 – 5 AZR 135/16; Federal Social Court, judgement of 13 November 2025 – B 12 BA 8/24 R). For three festival days of eight hours each, around EUR 333 would therefore have to be paid retrospectively, in addition to the ticket already issued.

Retrospective payment of social security contributions

If, for example, the German Pension Insurance Fund (Deutsche Rentenversicherung) determines during an audit that the work constitutes employment subject to social security contributions – whether directly or by way of disguised agency work – rather than voluntary work, the same principles apply as in the case of bogus self-employment. The association or limited liability company (GmbH) must generally pay the contributions retrospectively for up to four years, whilst the volunteer must pay for a maximum of three months.

Caution is advised here, as social security courts are more likely to assume that an activity constitutes employment for social security purposes than labour courts are to recognise an employment relationship, even though both apply almost identical criteria for distinguishing between the two. A labour court may therefore conclude that no employment relationship exists, whereas a social security court may determine that the same activity constitutes an employment relationship subject to social security contributions and that, consequently, social security contributions must be paid retrospectively.

When the hybrid model exists only on paper: disguised agency work

The hybrid model only provides protection if it is actually put into practice. If the association coordinates its volunteers itself – with its own on-site contact persons and its own scheduling – and the limited liability company (GmbH) merely provides the association with organisational guidelines such as ‘Area X must be finished by 6 pm’, this is not a problem. However, the situation becomes problematic if, in practice, the GmbH itself manages the volunteers – that is, determines ‘who’ is to do ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. In that case, the association is merely a ‘conduit’, and there is a strong likelihood of covert labour hire.

If the volunteers are classified as employees, this may also constitute unauthorised temporary agency work, with significant consequences:

• Invalid contracts: The contracts between the association and the limited liability company, as well as between the association and the volunteer, are invalid (Section 9(1)(1) of the German Temporary Employment Act (AÜG)).
• ‘New’ employment relationship: By operation of law, an employment relationship arises between the volunteer and the limited liability company (Section 10(1) of the German Temporary Employment Act (AÜG)).
• Joint liability: The limited liability company is primarily liable as the (deemed) employer for wages and social security contributions. If the club has itself paid the volunteers money that is classified as remuneration for work – such as daily allowances – it is jointly liable with the limited liability company in this respect (Section 10(3) of the AÜG).
• Fines: Both parties face fines of up to EUR 30,000 (Section 16(1)(1), (1a) and (2) of the AÜG).

The volunteer is injured

As genuine voluntary work does not constitute an employment relationship, standard accident insurance cover for employees does not apply. However, volunteers may be covered by statutory accident insurance via a statutory insurance scheme, provided that the statutes of the relevant accident insurance provider extend cover to volunteers and those engaged in civic activities (Section 3(1)(4) of Book VII of the Social Code). Whether and under what conditions this applies varies from federal state to federal state and must be clarified on a case-by-case basis.

The following distinction from an employment relationship is particularly important for organisers: in the case of employees, the employer is generally liable for personal injury resulting from an accident at work only in cases of wilful misconduct or a commuting accident. In such cases, the accident insurance scheme cannot, in principle, seek recourse against the employer (Section 104 of SGB VII). Whether this limitation of liability also applies to volunteers is a matter of legal dispute. In our view, it does not, as the limitation of liability is compensation for the fact that the employer finances the accident insurance through their contributions, whereas statutory insurance for volunteers is contribution-free, as the costs are borne by the public purse (Section 185(2) of Book VII of the Social Code). For organisers, this means that if a volunteer is injured, they remain fully liable under civil law, for example for breaching their duty to ensure public safety (Section 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB)). If the association or limited liability company (GmbH) has culpably caused the accident, the State Accident Insurance Fund may also reclaim its benefits from them (Section 116 of Book X of the Social Code). If there is no accident insurance cover, the organiser is fully liable for any culpable breach of safety obligations, including, where applicable, compensation for pain and suffering.

A volunteer injures a festival-goer

If a volunteer causes damage to a guest, the association may be liable for them as the ‘principal’. This does not apply if the association can prove that it selected and supervised the volunteer with due care (Section 831 of the German Civil Code (BGB)).

In the hybrid model, volunteers also benefit from the liability exemption for association members (Section 31b of the German Civil Code (BGB)): anyone who performs statutory association duties free of charge or for a maximum of EUR 3,300 per year is liable to the association only in cases of wilful misconduct or gross negligence. If the volunteer is required to pay compensation to an injured visitor, they may demand that the association indemnify them against such liability. This is an important safeguard for the volunteers – but for the association, it poses a double risk, as it may be liable to the visitor itself (Section 831 of the German Civil Code (BGB)) and must also indemnify the volunteer against their liability. Financially, therefore, the loss usually falls on the association. A club’s public liability insurance that also covers this right to indemnity is therefore essential. By contrast, Section 31b does not apply without a hybrid model due to the lack of club membership. If a public authority or a court classifies the activity as an employment relationship with the limited liability company (GmbH), the risk is essentially borne by the GmbH. If, on the other hand, the GmbH employs volunteers directly without an employment relationship existing, the volunteers may themselves be liable under certain circumstances.

A flawed structure therefore rarely results in costs in just one area. It can trigger back payments of the minimum wage and social security contributions, fines and liability for personal injury all at once. This makes it all the more important to get the structure right from the outset.

Practical guidance

In the hybrid model, the association should enter into a written volunteer agreement with each volunteer, stipulating that the work is voluntary, that no employment relationship exists and that no entitlement to remuneration arises. In addition, a cooperation agreement is required between the association and the GmbH/UG, clearly delineating their respective roles.

When it comes to organising volunteers, the following points are particularly important:

• Roster planning: Volunteers sign up for shifts themselves rather than being assigned to them. Those who do not turn up are not penalised.
• Choice of words: You should consistently avoid terms such as ‘job’, ‘shift’, ‘duty’ or ‘payment’.
• No instructions from the GmbH: The GmbH does not issue volunteers with direct (person-specific) instructions regarding the nature, location or timing of their work.
• No quota: The association does not undertake to ‘provide’ a specific number of volunteers.
• Accident insurance: Before the festival, check with the relevant accident insurance provider to clarify whether insurance cover is in place and under what conditions.
• Public liability: Organiser’s public liability insurance is strongly recommended in all cases. In the mixed model, the association should also take out association public liability insurance to cover the voluntary work of its members.

Conclusion

The actual implementation must be consistent with the contractual framework. If practice deviates from the written agreement, it is always the reality on the ground that counts for legal classification. With the hybrid model – clearly documented voluntary participation, limited ticket allocations and a consistent separation between voluntary support tasks and core operational functions – a viable volunteer programme can be established.

Are you planning a festival with volunteers or would you like to know how robust your existing programme is?

We’ll review your structures and contracts, highlight where liability risks lie, and support you in drafting volunteer agreements and partnership agreements – so you can focus on the line-up and guests rather than on correspondence from the pension insurance scheme.

* The terms used in this article to refer to people always apply equally to individuals with the gender designation f/m/d. To improve readability, we have omitted repeated references.