Who is the Girls’ Employer – Judgment Released
Opinion piece: Liz Gregory.
(Thoughts, opinions and view expressed here belong to Liz Gregory and may or may not represent the views of all leavers or current members).
15 December 2024. Another step forward in the fight for justice. In fact, this one was a leap!
Chief Judge Inglis has determined that the employer in the Girls’ Pilgrim Employment case was the Overseeing Shepherd. More than that, it’s not just the person who fulfills the role, it is the role itself.
Here are the interesting parts of the judgement. For those who want to read the full judgment you can do so here:
Who Employed the Plaintiffs?
Para 15: I have formed the view that at all material times the employer was the Overseeing Shepherd. Essentially that is because the evidence pointed squarely to the Overseeing Shepherd, at any particular point in time, being the ultimate controlling force within the Community, specifically (although not exclusively) in respect of work and in respect of the assets of the Community.
The ultimate string-pulling function, and entitlement to do so by virtue of the Community’s foundational documents, sits firmly with the Overseeing Shepherd. From the inception of the Gloriavale Community until his death on 15 May 2018, the individual holding that role was Hopeful Christian and, from that date, Howard Temple.
The Facts
Para 20: In this case the documentation is helpful, most particularly What We Believe. This document is of central importance within the Gloriavale Community and clearly states that it is the Overseeing Shepherd who has the authority and responsibility to make all appointments to fill positions of responsibility. What We Believe also makes it explicit that:
“… there will always be one principal leader who must accept full responsibility for all that happens in the Church, and to whom all the other leaders and brethren must give account.”…
Para 22: While he delegated certain functions in the Teams to, for example, the House Mother, and regarded himself as a “hands off manager”, he readily accepted that as Overseeing Shepherd he retains ultimate control.
On multiple Employers
Para 16: I note a further point at this juncture. I accept that it is possible to have joint or multiple separate employers, and that the Court has the power to identify the correct employer/s where a plaintiff has got it wrong.
On Contract issues – continuation after death
Mr Skelton (Gloriavale’s lawyer) submitted that a contract of employment exists between two persons, because it is a contract for personal services; the death of one or both (such as in the present case on the passing of Hopeful Christian) discharges the contract…. I understood him to submit that, while Hopeful Christian held office as the Overseeing Shepherd, that was not an office with legal personality, and so when he died the contract died too. All future obligations were, at that point, discharged; accrued entitlements were not discharged.
The judge found (Para 28): The role of Overseeing Shepherd is continuous – the man holding the role may change from time to time, but the role itself is never vacant. This continuity is a critical functional feature of the existence of the Community, and is recognised as such in What We Believe…. In other words, the chain is unbroken, and deliberately so – at all times the Community retains its direct link to God through the Overseeing Shepherd, whosoever that man might be.
In a novation an original party to a contract (in this case the deceased Overseeing Shepherd) is replaced by a third party (the new Overseeing Shepherd); all the rights and obligations of the original party (the outgoing party) are transferred to the new party and the outgoing party ceases to be a party to the contract.
Para 54: Regardless of how the analysis is approached, the outcome is the same. The individual that holds the role of Overseeing Shepherd is liable to account for any alleged breaches against the plaintiff employees.
Realities:
The reality is that the Gloriavale Community operates within its own operational structure, with various individuals (such as the plaintiffs) carrying out the tasks assigned to them, all within the Community’s rubric. That rubric includes an understanding of who is subordinate and who is the final arbiter in all things, including work. That final arbiter is the Overseeing Shepherd, regardless of the identity of the individual who holds that role at any particular point in time.
When were the Girls designated as employees?
Para 57: I am satisfied, based on the evidence before the Court, that the Overseeing Shepherd was the employer during the periods that each of the plaintiffs worked on the Teams.
She made the following rulings:
- Serenity Pilgrim was employed by the Overseeing Shepherd from 2016 (when
she started full-time work on the Teams) to the time she stopped working on
the Teams. The Overseeing Shepherd was the first named second defendant,
Howard Temple, from 15 May 2018 to the time of Serenity Pilgrim’s departure
from the Community and Hopeful Christian until 15 May 2018. - Anna Courage was employed by the Overseeing Shepherd from around 2015
(when she started full-time work on the Teams) to the time she stopped
working on the Teams. - Rose Standtrue was employed by the Overseeing Shepherd from around
2014/2015 (when she started full-time work on the Teams) to the time she
stopped working on the Teams. - Crystal Loyal was employed by the Overseeing Shepherd from around 2008
(when she started full-time work on the Teams) to the time she stopped
working on the Teams. - Pearl Valor was employed by the Overseeing Shepherd from around 2005
(when she started full-time work on the Teams) to the time she stopped
working on the Teams. - Virginia Courage was employed by the Overseeing Shepherd from around
1994 (when she started full-time work on the Teams) to the time she stopped
working on the Teams.
Conclusion:
I conclude that the Overseeing Shepherd was the employer.
Alternatively, the individual holding the title of Overseeing Shepherd was the employer
Para 42: If I am wrong in my conclusion that the Overseeing Shepherd was the employer, I would have otherwise found that the employer was the individual holding the title of Overseeing Shepherd at the relevant time/s. From the inception of the Community until his death, that individual was Hopeful Christian; immediately on his death it was Howard Temple; when Howard Temple dies, it will be Stephen Standfast.
Where to from here:
Para 66: The claim against the Labour Inspector for breach of statutory duty in both the Courage and Pilgrim proceedings remains on foot. The Labour Inspector protests the jurisdiction of this Court to determine this claim. The protest to jurisdiction in both proceedings should now be timetabled through to hearing.
Para 67: The employer issue in the Courage proceedings also needs to be concluded.
Para 69: As I have said, the declaration of employment status in these proceedings is the first step for the six named plaintiffs. If they wish to pursue a claim for compensation, lost wages, penalties and the like, fresh proceedings will need to be filed in the Authority, which may be removed to the Court.
Para 70: The Court is obliged to consider directing parties to mediation. I raised with counsel for the plaintiffs and the Gloriavale defendants whether they thought there might be merit in attending mediation or a judicial settlement conference, noting that they may wish to explore the possibility of bringing matters to a conclusion as between themselves, and in a way that might meet broader objectives which the litigation process may not be able to deliver.
Para 71: Mr Henry advised that the plaintiffs would welcome the opportunity to attend a settlement conference with an experienced Judge; Mr Skelton subsequently took instructions and advised that, while his clients saw some merit in this option, they would confirm the position once the employer identity issue was determined. That issue has now been resolved. Mr Skelton should advise the Registrar promptly as to whether a settlement conference is sought.
For a layman’s analysis of the judgement click here.