Children's work not 'chores': Gloriavale leavers win Employment Court case
Tuesday, 10 May 2022
Former Gloriavale members say they are “finally being heard” after the Employment Court’s ruling that they were employees.
Two of the three former workers who brought the case, Daniel Pilgrim and Hosea Courage, spoke to media outside Christchurch’s justice precinct after Chief Judge Christina Inglis’ judgment was released on Tuesday.
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”.
**READ MORE:
* Founder's son fails to give evidence for Gloriavale in Employment Court
* Gloriavale leaders reject slavery claims, say members work 'willingly' and 'lovingly'
* Gloriavale kids made to work days without sleep, one chained to steel post, court told
**
“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.”
Courage said he was glad the process had finally come to an end.
“They have been heard and … we won’t let this kind of thing happen in New Zealand.”
Courage said the “exploitation” in Gloriavale “may not be able to be stopped unless it is closed down”.
The former members – Hosea Courage, Levi Courage and Pilgrim – who were born in Gloriavale, described beginning work in the businesses from the age of 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.
On Tuesday, Pilgrim said he believed the Labour Inspectorate had been “hopeless” and failed to do its job.
“I understand it was going to be messy for them to step in and get involved, and I believe that’s why they didn’t, it was just a bit of a cop out really, so hopefully they will now start doing their job.”
Their priority was to see the law enforced for family and friends in Gloriavale, “so they are not being over-worked, so they have sick days, that they can make decisions about where they work”.
“In reality they make none of their decisions.”
The Employment 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 New Zealand employment laws, was wrong.
Lawyers for Gloriavale told the court there were no employment relationships because the people worked for their shared faith-based beliefs to ensure the community’s needs were met and claimed 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 that 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 in a media release.
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”.
“The work undertaken by the plaintiffs as children between the ages of 6 and 14 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 little influence, and no final say, over where, when, and for how long their children worked, the judge said.
The work undertaken when the plaintiffs were 15 and still legally obliged to be at school could not be described as an educational work experience or as volunteering.
Judge Inglis the plaintiffs signed agreements labelling them as ‘associate partners’ when they were 16, but they did not understand what they were signing and did they have capacity, because of their age, to be part of a partnership.
“Further, the recording of time worked and the rate of pay reflected a degree of intention to comply with minimum employment entitlements.”
Future judgments would identify which person or entity in Gloriavale's commercial structure was the employer/s and whether the Labour Inspector breached any statutory duty to the plaintiffs by the way it concluded its investigation, the judge said.
“Based on Gloriavale’s history, it’s going to take external pressures on them to make those changes happen because they don’t really have a respect for law or the government,” Pilgrim said.
Stuff previously reported several former members said they were forced to sign documents and were in an employment relationship with the community, but several current members told the court they worked together as a big family.
Counsel assisting the Employment Court and independent observer of the proceedings Robert Kirkness said the evidence raised serious concerns about the after-school work, which appeared to be forced child labour.
“In the light of the evidence given, the court could and should refer the matter to the appropriate entity for further investigation,” he said in his closing submission.
The court had jurisdiction under the Employment Relations Act to order any employment remedies, or if the judge found the contracts to be unlawful she could make orders under the Contract and Commercial Law Act, he said.
Pilgrim urged the leadership at Gloriavale to listen to the ruling.
“I wish you had listened earlier but please for the sake of everyone start listening and start making the changes that have to be made.”
Counsel for Gloriavale’s leaders has been approached for comment on Tuesday’s ruling.