Gloriavale leavers seek court order after ERA says it will hear lost wages claim

Two groups of former Gloriavale employees have failed in a bid to have their $5.2 million claim for compensation and lost earnings heard by the Employment Court.

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has decided it will hear the matter instead.

However, they are fighting on – Brian Henry, a lawyer representing the former Gloriavale members, said he had filed an application in the Employment

Court for special leave to have it heard there.

He said there were 38 other former members prepared to make claims, which could reach in excess of $20m.

Hosea Courage, Daniel Pilgrim and Levi Courage successfully proved in the Employment Court in May 2022 that they were employees when they worked in Gloriavale-owned businesses from the age of 6.

The court has yet to decide on who the employer was.

In a separate case, the Employment

Court found in July last year that Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Pilgrim, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valor and Virginia Courage were employees of Overseeing Shepherd Howard Temple when they worked in the community’s kitchens, laundries and childcare centres.

The two groups applied to the ERA for a $5.2m claim for compensation for “humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings”, lost wages, holiday pay and interest on wage arrears.

They said a deduction could be made for board and food they received while living in the community. They also applied to the ERA to move the matter to the Employment Court because it was familiar with the complex and urgent cases after 14 weeks of hearings.

Temple opposed the application, saying the matter was neither complex nor urgent, and no important questions of law were at issue.

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. He said there was no public interest in having it heard by the court “other than curiosity over what has been a secluded and private community”.

“I do not consider the adversarial approach of the court will assist or enable a more efficient resolution of this matter.”

He said Temple possibly did not want it to go to court to avoid further publicity and legal costs.

“The parties are encouraged to resolve any issue of costs between themselves,” he said.

If an agreement could not be reached,

Temple was invited to lodge a memorandum on costs.

Henry said he believed it needed to be heard by an adversarial court system rather than a “let’s sit around the room and have a cup of tea” approach by the ERA.

He said the matter did involve an important question of law regarding the six-year limitation period for employment relationship problems other than personal grievances.

“The question that has to go to court is, when does that six year period start,” he said.