Gloriavale Women: Divine Calling Meets Payroll
By Lara Albert
The Employment Court’s recent ruling in the case of Pilgrim v Attorney-General has determined that six former Gloriavale women were employees, not volunteers, while they were part of the Christian community.
Gloriavale is a Christian community located near Lake Haupiri on the South Island’s West Coast. It strictly follows the King James Version of the Bible and has limited contact with the outside world. Gloriavale is characterised by a strongly patriarchal structure, where male leaders hold significant authority over all aspects of community life. The principal leader, the Overseeing Shepherd, is considered the highest authority and is ultimately responsible for making all decisions within Gloriavale. The position of ‘Overseeing Shepherd’ is deemed to be divinely ordained; he is accountable to God alone.
The six plaintiffs, Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Courage, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valor and Virginia Courage, were all born and raised in this community. Each plaintiff left Gloriavale at various times between 2017 and 2020. Upon departure, claims were raised with the Labour Inspector, who concluded that the plaintiffs were not employees and, thus, that there was no jurisdiction to pursue minimum worker benefits. This conclusion led the plaintiffs to file proceedings for a declaration of employment status.
The Employment Court’s Chief Judge Christina Inglis found that the women had worked under punishing conditions from a young age, being assigned to work on domestic teams without any choice. These teams were responsible for preparing food, cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry for the community’s 600 members. Evidence from a typical week in 2018 displayed that the female workforce in the kitchen team produced more than 11,000 meals, while the laundry team washed at least 17,000 items. The Court interpreted this evidence to suggest that the work required was “unrelenting, grinding, hard and physically and phycological demanding.” The Court also found that the women worked under strict direction and control, as they were taught from very young to submit to male leadership.
Upon this evidence, The Court conducted an analysis under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act. Section 6 defines ‘employment’ and enables the Court to declare a worker an employee, affording the worker minimum entitlements designed to guard against worker exploitation. However, volunteers are strictly excluded from being found employees under section 6(c). The Court first determined whether the women were volunteers, then went on to address their employee status.
In section 6(c), a volunteer is defined as an individual who performs work without expecting or receiving any reward. The defence argued that the plaintiffs’ work was voluntary, as it stemmed from their religious commitment to a communal lifestyle. According to them, the women involved neither anticipated nor received any compensation for their efforts, and there was no intent to establish legal obligations. Gloriavale’s leadership emphasised the domestic nature of the work, implying that it existed outside the public realm and lacked economic value. The Court was unpersuaded by these outdated notions and highlighted that the crucial factor in determining whether the work was voluntary was the context in which it was performed rather than the nature of the work itself.
The Gloriavale context is peculiar as many familial ties link the community. However, the Court found that despite the interconnected family relationships, the scale of the plaintiffs’ work resembled industrial operations rather than mere familial chores (which may be conducted by a volunteer). Additionally, the so-called choice that the plaintiffs had in deciding whether to work was deemed “illusionary.” Refusing to perform the work would have effectively resulted in expulsion from the community (the only world these women knew) and “eternal damnation.” Consequently, the Court determined that the plaintiffs were not volunteers, because their work was driven by the prospect of rewards associated with being allowed to remain within the community, like food, clothing, shelter, religious support, and, significantly, salvation.
After making this determination, the Court was then required to address whether the plaintiffs were employees for the purpose of the Act. In the absence of any contract between the women and Gloriavale, the Court took a relationship-centric/purposive approach (section 6(2)), requiring the Court to assess the nature of the relationship to determine whether a contract of service existed. When considering the nature of a relationship, the intention must be assessed objectively. The Court found that an objective observer going into the facilities in which the plaintiffs worked would conclude that the relationship had the “hallmarks of employment” because of its commercial nature. This, combined with the plaintiffs’ lack of genuine choice in their work and the fact that they received some form of reward, pointed the Court toward the conclusion that the relationship between the women and Gloriavale resembled an employment arrangement.
Ultimately, this case also exemplifies New Zealand's growing intolerance for any form of worker exploitation and highlights the strengthening of minimum standards that form the foundation of employment relationships.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: The Blue Diamond Gallery