Gloriavale granted leave to appeal women’s case

Gloriavale leaders have been granted leave to appeal an Employment Court case that ruled a group of women were employees when they worked in the community.

The leaders – Howard Temple, Stephen Steadfast, Samuel Valor, Faithful Pilgrim and Noah Hopeful – went to the Appeal Court to ask for leave to fight on four grounds against the Employment Court’s decision that recognised the former Gloriavale women as employees, rather than volunteers.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on those grounds, but found two “narrower questions of law” of its own, which could have wider significance for religious or volunteer organisations. The questions were whether the women worked for reward and, if not, if they were volunteers who did not expect to be rewarded.

The Court of Appeal invited submissions from counsel on intangible benefits such as religious support, spiritual salvation and the entitlement to remain in the community.

The decision to grant leave to appeal, by Justices David Collins and Christine French, was released publicly yesterday.

The Employment Court decision meant the women had rights under employment law, including minimum working conditions and pay.

The leaders did not appeal a similar finding in an earlier case brought by three former Gloriavale men, who were found to be employees after they worked in the community’s commercial businesses from age 6.

The previous decision on the women’s case, by Justices Forrie Miller and David Collins, declining leave to appeal on four grounds, said the Employment Court did nor err or misdirect itself on the meaning of “employee”. It also did not misapply the test that found the women were employees, nor did it err in declaring they were employees without first identifying who the employer was. Employment Court Chief Judge Christina Inglis has reserved her decision on who the employer is.

The Court of Appeal also found that the chief judge did not deny the leaders natural justice.

The decision rejected the leaders’ claims that Chief Judge Inglis should have recused herself because she had also heard the men’s case, and allowed irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, including allegations of sexual abuse in the community.

The leaders also claimed they did not have a chance to cross-examine an expert giving psychiatric evidence on the effects of being raised in a community such as Gloriavale.

The Court of Appeal said the mere fact the judge had made adverse findings in the men’s case was not enough to justify recusal, and the allegations of abuse were relevant to “an understanding of the background”.

Chief Judge Inglis found that the women were not volunteers. They expected to be, and were, rewarded for their work by being allowed to remain in the community, receiving the necessities of life, religious support and guidance, and the promise of spiritual redemption.

The Court of Appeal said there was “an evidential foundation” for Chief Judge Inglis’ findings.

“Notably, she found that the respondents worked and did so at the direction of a team led by the Overseeing Shepherd, the principal leader of the community. The relationship was long-term, and work was not optional.”