Employment Court Win – Summary of Judgment
Opinion piece: Liz Gregory.
(Thoughts, opinions and views expressed here belong to Liz Gregory and may or may not represent the views of the Gloriavale Leavers’ Support Trust, former or current members of Gloriavale.).
Judge Christina Inglis ruled in favour of the former Gloriavale female plantiffs in another landmark case on 13 July 2023. She agreed the plaintiffs at Gloriavale were not volunteers, and would best be described as employees. She also upheld the view that they were in a servitude-like relationship in the community.
The hearing stretched across 10 weeks during the period August 2022 – March 2023.
First Defendants – The Attorney General sued on behalf of MBIE
Second Defendants – Howard Temple, Samuel Valor, Faithful Pilgrim, Noah Hopeful, Stephen Standfast. Earlier defendants now removed – Enoch Upright (deceased) and Fervent Stedfast (illness).
Click here to read a summarised version.
Click here to read the full judgment.
Notable Quotes
“In a typical week in 2018, the female workforce in the kitchen produced more than 11,000 meals; the female workforce in the laundry washed at least 17,000 items. The evidence clearly established that the work required to produce these outcomes was unrelenting, grinding, hard, and physically and psychologically demanding.”
“The evidence disclosed that none of the plaintiffs were given a choice about whether they worked on the Teams or not. Broadly speaking, that decision had been assigned at birth, having been born female. Nor (as I will come to) did any of the plaintiffs (or their parents) exercise any real choice about which Team they worked on. Rather, the plaintiffs were assigned to a particular Team without any real consultation, and generally became aware of which Team they had been assigned to when they left the Community school, and saw their name written on a roster on a Community notice board in the main building.”
” Each of the plaintiffs was born into the Community and they were taught from birth that they were to submit to male leadership in all aspects of their life including their work”
” I have reached the conclusion, based on the evidence before the Court, that the plaintiffs did their work on the Teams, which admittedly benefitted the Community, because that is what they were told to do; what each of them had been trained to accept from birth; and the consequences of not doing what was expected (namely falling “out of unity”) were dire and well known – exclusion from the Community, from all that was familiar, from family and friends, and into a world they know little about, were ill equipped to navigate and had been taught to fear.”
“It is apparent that for the plaintiffs their time at Gloriavale, and their experience working there, has left deep scars. While I accept that some of the evidence as to the conditions under which the plaintiffs worked was likely coloured by their negative experience and the passage of time, I do not consider that it reflects on the credibility of each of the plaintiffs more generally. I was left with no doubt that they worked extremely hard, and under punishing conditions, during their time on the Teams.”
“The limited scope of the choice – to work or not to work, to stay or to go – which was in reality available to young women in the plaintiffs’ position, was underscored by material placed before the Court by the Gloriavale leadership. It identified people who had left Gloriavale between the ages of 13 and 20, differentiating them by gender and whether they had left “of their own choice” or with their family. It is notable that three boys left at 15 years of age in comparison to one girl; eight boys left at 16 years of age in comparison to two girls; six boys left at 17 years of age in comparison to one girl. The disparity is striking and reinforced evidence given by the plaintiffs that they essentially felt trapped for a period of time before they left the Community.”
“The situation that the plaintiffs found themselves in has some parallels with the sort of cultural dynamics not infrequently seen by this Court in migrant worker cases, where the employer (sometimes a migrant worker themselves) exploits (wittingly or otherwise) the willingness of their workers to work in a way that is perhaps accepted elsewhere, though not in New Zealand. In one sense working in this way is voluntary – the migrant worker can choose not to take up the position or, having done so, can choose to leave. But the extent of any “choice” is largely illusory and must be seen on a spectrum. The plaintiffs were, I find, close to the no-or-very little real choice end of the spectrum in terms of work.”
“In summary, the evidence clearly established that none of the plaintiffs made a decision about whether they worked on the Teams or when they started work or where. Those decisions were effectively made for them by the Overseeing Shepherd, through his subordinate leaders and other senior people (including women) within the Community. Each of the plaintiffs was born into the Community and they were taught from birth that they were to submit to male leadership in all aspects of their life, including their work. Because that had been deeply engrained from a very young age, including through modelling by other women in the Community, their ostensible voluntary progression to work on the rosters (from helping on duty day and in the kitchen or laundry to working full-time on the Teams) followed as night follows day.
As Dr Norris put it: [a woman] is likely to struggle to refuse any aspect of the assigned role…due to their lifetime experience living within the values and rules of the community (and their lack of experience living outside those values and rules). “
“The reality is that the plaintiffs worked in line with what was expected of them as a female member of the Community, coupled with a firm expectation that all able-bodied residents (including those in the plaintiffs’ position) would work hard and as directed. This was reinforced from the top down. The evidence established that the plaintiffs worked under the strict direction and control of the Overseeing Shepherd, through his subordinate leadership team. The plaintiffs were required to turn up to work as directed (according to a roster) and were told when and where to work, how they were to do their work and for how long they would do it.”
Declarations are Made
- Declarations are made that Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Courage, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valor and Virginia Courage were employees while working on the Teams, when resident at Gloriavale.
- The question as to who the employer of each of the plaintiffs was during the relevant times is adjourned.
- The plaintiffs are entitled to costs, the quantum of which is reserved.