Gloriavale hierarchy fronts up to the Court of Appeal to challenge employment status of six former members
Members of the Gloriavale religious community were attempting to recreate the lifestyle of early Christians and did not expect payment for communal work. This meant they were not employees, the Court of Appeal was told on Tuesday.
The court is hearing an appeal against a 2023 Employment Court ruling that six former Gloriavale members were employees, not volunteers whose work was an expression of religious commitment.
Counsel for Gloriavale, Philip Skelton KC, said the religious community – which comprises about 600 people, including 82 families – lives in isolation on the South Island’s West Coast. It was a patriarchal society, led by an “overseeing shepherd” who sought to emulate the way early Christians lived in Jerusalem in the First Century.
So, work was divided along gender lines, with men providing income by interacting with the outside world through sales of dairy products and tourism services, while women contributed to Gloriavale’s “internal economy”.
The women’s duties included working in the communal kitchen and laundry, with no payment for their labour.
The appeal is examining two issues relating to whether the plaintiffs – all women who left the community between 2017 and 2021 – had an employment relationship with Gloriavale under s 6 of the Employment Relations Act.
The questions are (i) did they work for hire or rewards within the meaning of the Act? and (ii) if not, were they volunteers for the purposes of the Act?
‘Working for the Lord’
Skelton said there was no evidence that the plaintiffs expected payment for their work.
“The plaintiffs did not complain about the work that they were required to do at the time, appeared to do it willingly and did not expect to be paid money for doing it,” he said.
“No one gave any evidence suggesting that in this community they expected to receive a wage in exchange for the work that they were doing, because it wasn’t the way the community operated.
“No one was going to work like in the outside world, where you go to work, you provide your labor in exchange for money, for reward. Inside the community, you don’t work to benefit yourself… you’re working for others. Some say they’re working for the Lord, or ‘I’m working for my brothers and sisters in Christ ‘. They’re working for the community.”
Skelton said the work Gloriavale members did for the community was meant to ensure everyone was provided for equally, not for personal gain.
“Unlike some other communal situations, the leaders don’t get more than anybody else. They don’t drive around in flash BMWs, they have the same clothes, the same food, they have one wife, no more than that. That’s what they see as equal sharing and what we believe describes communal living as not a lifestyle or optional extra… it’s a manifestation of religious belief.”
The Employment Court decision on the Gloriavale women developed a new test for the application of s 6 – “vulnerability and/or lack of choice”.
But Skelton said just because someone was vulnerable did not mean they were an employee.
“There are many employees who are not vulnerable who have lots of bargaining power but, likewise, there are many independent contractors who are vulnerable. They’re not automatically employees… iI’s not a helpful concept in undertaking that analysis,” he said.
The case Howard Temple & Ors v Serenity Pilgrim & Ors is continuing.