Employment Court finds six former female residents of Gloriavale were employees.

Six former female residents of Gloriavale successfully obtained a declaration from the Employment Court in July that they were employees of Gloriavale.  The women had worked full time cleaning, washing, sewing and cooking supporting both the community and its business endeavours. 

The Gloriavale defendants denied that the women were employees and claimed that they were 'volunteers' on the basis that the work was conducted as an expression of their religious commitment to live in a communal setting or, alternatively, that they were conducing domestic work as part of a 'bigger family'.  They claimed that a finding of an employment relationship would be incompatible with the true, religious nature of the relationship.

The Employment Court found that the work was 'grinding, hard, unrelenting, and physically and psychologically demanding' that had left "deep scars" for the plaintiffs. If the women refused to do the work without good reason, they would suffer consequences including, in extreme cases, being expelled from the community and shunned by their family and friends.

In reaching her conclusion that the women were employees, Chief Judge Ingles noted the importance of adopting an approach that recognises the protective purposes of the Employment Relations Act when considering the question of whether a worker is an employee.  She considered the nature of the work, the nature of the facilities in which the work was conducted and the fact that the employees had little choice but to do the work.  The employees were not volunteers, the classification of the work as domestic was not relevant and freedom of religion is subject to New Zealand's laws, including employment laws. 

This follows the Employment Court's decision in May 2022 that three former male residents of Gloriavale were employees from the age of six until they left the community and the Uber decision in October 2022 that Uber drivers are employees and not independent contractors.  These cases show a willingness by the Court to look behind the arrangements in place between the parties to determine the true nature of the relationship and apply minimum employment entitlements where an employment relationship exists.  

Second Victory for Fomer Gloriavale Residents

Chief Judge Ingles has held, for the second time, that former Gloriavale residents were employees and therefore entitled to minimum employment protections.  Six former female residents of Gloriavale brought a claim in the Employment Court for recognition of their status as employees during their time working in the community between 2017 and 2021.  

This follows the Chief Judge's decision in May 2022 that three former male residents of Gloriavale were employees from the age of six until they left the community.

The Women's Case

From a young age (around six) each of the women carried out work within the Gloriavale community, progressing to full time work, cleaning, washing, sewing and cooking for the community and its business endeavours, which include a honey-making plant, large-scale dairy farm and a pet food business. 

The Gloriavale defendants denied that the women were employees and claimed that they were 'volunteers' on the basis that the work was conducted as an expression of their religious commitment to live in a communal setting or, alternatively, that they were conducing domestic work as part of a 'bigger family'.  They claimed that a finding of an employment relationship would be incompatible with the true, religious nature of the relationship.

The Men's Case

"The Men's Case", as Chief Judge Inglis referred to it, involved three former male residents who claimed they were employees and deprived of minimum working standards. The men claimed that they were required to work long hours, under harsh conditions, with minimal leave.  

The Employment Court ruled that the men were employees from the age of six taking into account the control, power and direction that the Gloriavale leadership held over them. Chief Judge Inglis rejected the claim that the work was 'chores' and noted that it was clear that "the ready access to child labour constitutes a significant factor in the success of the Gloriavale business model."

She said that "the fact that work practices take place within a religious community with a particular view on how it should operate, and the principles under which it will function, does not mean that those work practices are beyond the reach of the law." The underlying intent of the law was to prevent employers avoiding employment protections by using agreements which placed form over substance.

The women were also employees

Following a lengthy hearing held, Chief Judge Inglis also reached the view that the women were employees. Importantly, she emphasised that an approach which recognises the protective purposes of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the minimum standards that sit around it is appropriate when considering the question of whether a worker is able to pass through the employee gateway.

She found that:

• The real nature of the relationship with the women was an employment relationship having regard to a range of factors such as the nature of the work (which was of a sort which would generally be paid for), the nature of the facilities in which they conducted the work, which included commercial grade kitchens, and the significant direction and control exerted on them in their work.
• The work was 'grinding, hard, unrelenting, and physically and psychologically demanding' that has left "deep scars" for the plaintiffs. If the women refused to do the work without good reason, they would suffer consequences including, in extreme cases, being expelled from the community and shunned by their family and friends. 
• They were not volunteers because they received reward for the work, which was being permitted to remain in the community with their family and friends, to continue to lead a life they were familiar with and to receive housing, food and spiritual guidance.
• The fact that the type of work they did was 'domestic' in nature did not assist in determining whether they were employees or not and the Court did not accept that the work was carried out for each of the plaintiff's family members or some notional big family.
• The finding that they were employees would not be incompatible with the community's chosen way of life as freedom of religion as protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is subject to general laws, including employment law.

How is the Gloriavale decision relevant to your organisation?

The Gloriavale decisions follow the Employment Court's decision in October 2022 confirming that Uber drivers are employees not independent contractors. The decision highlighted the growing risk that companies using contractors may be in breach of minimum employment standards, and is now under appeal.

These cases show a willingness by the Court to look behind the arrangements in place between the parties to determine the true nature of the relationship. This may have a significant financial impact on organisations that have arrangements in place, including volunteer arrangements, independent contractor arrangements, gig workers, or complex legal structures that don't reflect the substance of the relationship, and that ultimately results in workers being deprived of minimum employment conditions.

Further, the Government is currently considering a regime to combat modern slavery as exploitative work practices remain prevalent in our domestic and international supply chains.