This is a question came up in a webinar that I am hoping the Admins and/or the brilliant folks on the forum can answer.
In Alberta, a volunteer is considered an unpaid employee. As a result, the organization asking someone to volunteer must have occupational health and safety in place. An organization I am involved in is developing such a program, In the interim, we specifically do NOT ask people to volunteer. Doing so without a safety program would place the organization and board at risk.
Most Canadian provinces have similar legislation. As a result, is there a risk to the larger iNaturalist organization or CWF? Alternatively, does iNaturalist have a secret sauce in which it is excluded from provincial legislation, for example, as a federal organization?
I did a search in the forum and AI and no definitive result so hopefully this is a new question… and not a surprise to CWF!
These things always can be confusing or complicated when one nation’s understanding of a concept like “volunteering” is subject to the laws of another nation. At least here in the US, the kind of “volunteering” that iNaturalist observers and identifiers do is not legally different than for example, a neighbor who pick up litter in a park at their own direction and on their own schedule. It is, at least according to the US understanding of the term, an informal form of volunteering not subject to labor laws because nobody is telling anyone to do anything.
LI022 is probably the relevant bulletin that describes the conditions when volunteers have a worker-employee relationship. if 3 conditions described in the bulletin are met, the relationship exists, and the Alberta OHS legislation applies; otherwise, there is no worker-employee relationship, and the legislation does not apply.
it looks like Alberta has a very broad definition of workers. it seems like most other places require at least some form of payment, even if the payment is not cash (such as food, gift passes, etc.)
Thank you @pisum . The relevant section of that bulletin, for those who don’t want to read a few pages, is:
“When assessing a particular situation to determine if there is a workeremployer
relationship, three conditions need to be met:
(1) the organization requests the volunteer’s participation;
(2) the organization organizes the volunteer’s activities; and
(3) the volunteer provides a service to the organization e.g. teaching a
skill to students or staff, picking up garbage in an area, building a
house for the organization, etc.
The OHS legislation does not apply in situations where a person or
group of persons, on their own initiative, agrees to voluntarily provide
a service to an organization. The organization has not requested the
service nor has it organized the volunteers to perform the service. It
would be inappropriate to suggest that the organization is an employer
of the volunteers.”
In the case of an iNat observer or identifier, I’d argue that iNat does (1) request participation and (3) by improving the database, receives services. I’d also argue that iNat pretty clearly does not (2) organize volunteers’ activities. And since the legislation doesn’t apply in cases where the volunteer “of their own initiative, agrees to voluntarily provides a service” I’d say it applies to very few iNat users.
Personally, I would say that iNat encourages participation but doesn’t request it. As an identifier I suppose my help has been requested by other users, but I have never felt that iNat itself was requesting me to do anything.
for some reason, i thought the original poster was referring to the Ambassador program, but going back and reading the original post, it’s not mentioned…
Definition of a volunteer in the OHS Act: (tt) “worker” means a person engaged in an occupation, including a person who performs or supplies services for no monetary compensation for an organization or employer.
The Alberta legislation is very clear with other provinces having varying degrees of clarity.
LI022 is the relevant bulletin with 3 tests: the Organization Asks, the Volunteer Offers, the Organization Accepts (for my organization, we simply never Ask nor accept).
@dlevitis and @grampianshiker you likely have identified the secret sauce for the issue. iNaturalist (and similar tools such as eBird) do not have a formal acceptance process for an individual volunteering activity.
That is iNaturalist has not asked Frank to visit the XYZ Natural Area, Frank has no way of offering to iNaturalist to visit XYZ, and iNaturalist has no way to approve the offer to visit.
The above is in parallel to my organization’s current state. I can get up in the morning and drive to XYZ, report on its status and both parties are happy - but there is not a volunteer relationship. However, if the organization specifically asks Frank to go and visit the sites, the relationship (and OHS) kicks in.
Thanks all for your input and help thinking this one through. As well the chat is part of the body of knowledge in case your jurisdiction moves toward the Alberta model for volunteers!
Also, in case you are tired of binging on interesting Netflix shows, the following provides an overview of Alberta’s OHS landscape. Mostly of interest to an organization running formal volunteer programs (e.g. trail maintenance, working with children, etc.). From a governance perspective, if you are complying with the Alberta level, the insurance company will probably love you (but not lower your premiums). Safety and the Volunteer: How to Comply With/Excel at AB’s OHS Requirements | Organizational Biology.
the way i read the bulletin, it’s more like (1) organization requests, (2) organization organizes the work, (3) volunteer performs work that benefits the organization.
offering is not the same as performing work. accepting is not the same as organizing work.
so for example, iNat recruits ambassadors (requests), then develops a methodology and rules for ambassador participation and trains potential ambassadors (organizes). as soon as a recruited ambassador actually does ambassador work, it seems to me like the worker-employer relationship is established. even if iNat later refuses the work, it wouldn’t negate the validity of relationship, i believe. (i don’t actually know much about the details of the ambassador program though. so i could be characterizing the nature of the organizing incorrectly.)
Sorry for being late to this thread. The folks at iNat.org had flagged this to me originally and part of it was that I was double checking on this, but mostly I just got side tracked.
Everyone here has spelled out the nuances well and I’m just confirming from our standpoint at the Canadian Wildlife Federation.
We are careful to haven anyone who officially volunteers on something related to iNat to be a CWF volunteer because iNat Canada isn’t an entity/organization unto itself. We have insurance and a volunteer form for them to complete to cover liability as a CWF volunteer.
The distinction, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, lies in the nature of the relationship and the level of direction provided.
From our Human Resources department, volunteers are typically:
Recruited and screened by the organization
Assigned specific tasks
Given a job description or scope of work
Monitored for performance,
And their contributions are tracked (e.g., hours, deliverables).
In the case of iNaturalist.ca, participation is generally self-directed, and while we encourage involvement, we don’t formally request or assign tasks to individuals. Ex. someone uploading observations or identifying species on their own initiative would be considered a participant, not a volunteer.
There are scenarios where someone would be considered a volunteer:
If we explicitly ask someone to attend or lead an iNaturalist-related event on behalf of CWF (e.g., guiding a nature walk or training others), that person would likely be considered a CWF volunteer.
If we recruit individuals or groups to contribute to a specific project (e.g., surveying a location and submitting observations), and provide structured guidance (separate from an open-invitation for a bioblitz or city nature challenge). These would be CWF volunteers, however, not an iNaturalist volunteer.
As for multi jurisdictions (in Canada), being a national organization our insurance would cover a person who volunteers for CWF no matter where they are in the country. But they’d have to enter into a volunteer agreement with us prior to undertaking the activity.
If there are nuances I’m not covering here, I’m happy to hear and address them as best I can.