Gloriavale’s child employees feel they are ‘finally being heard’

Former Gloriavale members say they are ‘‘finally being heard’’ after the Employment Court’s ruling that they were employees.

One of the three former workers who brought the case, Daniel Pilgrim, spoke to media outside Christchurch’s justice precinct after Chief Judge Christina Inglis’ judgment was released yesterday.

The judge considered whether an employment relationship existed between Gloriavale leaders and the leavers when they worked in the community’s commercial businesses. She reserved her decision on the identity of the employer/employers within the Gloriavale structure, and also reserved details of the costs the plaintiffs were entitled to.

Pilgrim said it was ‘‘overwhelming’’ that they were ‘‘finally being heard’’, and the decision would have ‘‘ramifications for a lot of people’’.

‘‘Voices in there that have been silenced for so many years, that their voices are finally being heard and there’s some legal recognition and something’s happening, it’s amazing really.’’

The former members – Hosea Courage, Levi Courage and Pilgrim – who were born in Gloriavale, described beginning work in the businesses age 6.

During a hearing in February, they said they were hit with implements such as rods, food was withheld, and they were publicly shamed if they failed to work.

Pilgrim said yesterday that he believed the Labour Inspectorate had failed to do its job.

Their priority was to see the law enforced for family and friends in Gloriavale, so ‘‘they can make decisions about where they work’’.

‘‘In reality they make none of their decisions.’’

The court’s decision would affect those currently and previously living at Gloriavale in regards to their working conditions, pay and employment rights. It means the previous Labour Inspectorate investigations, which found residents were not employees and therefore not protected by employment laws, was wrong.

Lawyers for Gloriavale told the court there were no employment relationships because the people worked for their shared faithbased beliefs to ensure the community’s needs were met and said the children’s work was ‘‘chores’’.

Judge Inglis found all three plaintiffs were employees from the age of 6 until they left Gloriavale.

‘‘The fact the work was undertaken within a religious community, and according to a particular set of beliefs and values, did not mean that it could escape close scrutiny by external agencies or avoid minimum employment standards if they applied,’’ she said.

The plaintiffs worked regularly and for long hours, primarily for the benefit of Gloriavale’s commercial operations. In return, they received the necessities of life and the ability to remain in the community – but the work was ‘‘subject to strict control’’, she said.

‘‘The work undertaken by the plaintiffs as children ... could not be described as ‘chores’, including because of the commercial nature of the activities, because they were performed over an extended period of time and because they were strenuous, difficult, and sometimes dangerous.’’

Parents had no final say, over where, when, and for how long their children worked, the judge said.