After the judge determined the employer for both the girls and boys was the Overseeing Shepherd, the cases were effectively joined up and proceeded through the courts to ensure remuneration was afforded to the plaintiffs. There were a series of arguments heard in court, as Gloriavale and the Government attempted to find clarity and reduce their liability.
The two parties tried mediation late 2023, but it failed. So the next step was for the plaintiffs to file their wage arrear claims with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA). Their job is to settle employment related disputes. The plaintiffs filed in January 2024, but they also then immediately asked for it to be removed back to the Employment Court to complete the process. Click here for more details. The lawyers argued it was a complex case and it would speed up the process for the same judge to work it out based on the evidence accepted in court. No, poor or untrue record-keeping is problematic for this case.
But this attempt failed, with the ERA saying they were the best placed agency to deal with the issues the ERA commented,
“In his decision, ERA member David Beck said the authority had dealt with similar matters where there were no records kept, and that there was no urgency in this case because it had taken a long time to get to this point”
On 25 July 2024 Judge Christina Inglis heard the plaintiffs (applicants) and defendants (respondents) arguments for or against the Employment Court finishing off the cases to ensure the Boys and Girls way is paved for payments of lost wages, instead of keeping it with the Employment Relations Authority. The leavers’ lawyers arguments were based on the desire to safeguard the plaintiffs from having to give further evidence about their work life at Gloriavale. They also highlighted the difficulties with producing time-sheets, and they argued that the ERA was not going to be capable of determining the time bar issue. (Gloriavale had indicated they would be seeking the courts assistance to set in stone as 6 year time restriction for backpay, while the plaintiffs maintain the exceptional circumstances of their work and life in Gloriavale meant there should be no restrictions on back pay.)
On 7 August 2024 the judge ruled that both the time bar issue and the remuneration issue be completed in the Employment Court and removed from the ERA.
27 November 2024 Judge Christina Inglis awards $274,427.75 + GST + Disbursements and Expenses be paid by Gloriavale to the plaintiffs for legal costs. (This is a fraction of the real costs of the legal expenses, had the lawyers been charging a fair fee). It is understood that Gloriavale’s legal fees to defend the case were more than $1 million.
March 16 – 18th in the Christchurch Employment Court, Judge Christina Inglis heard from the leavers’ lawyer as to why the MBIE reports should be quashed. Leavers say the reports were inadequate and amounted to an error of law. The Crown argued that MBIE did a thorough investigation. You can read the court notes in the Daily Vale blog posts Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Courage, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valor and Virginia Courage were all born into the Community and carried out various forms of domestic work starting from a young age. All six of them left Gloriavale and sought a declaration in the court that they were employees when performing work for the Community.
Gloriavale surveys its members in a most extraordinary fashion, and calls for more witnesses to "protect the Community". The survey hits the media and causes a big stir among people who have left Gloriavale.
Today the Employment Court started a five-week hearing to determine whether Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Courage, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valor and Virginia Courage were employees when performing various forms of domestic work for the Gloriavale Community.