A group of women born and raised at Gloriavale were employees and not volunteers during their time at the secretive Christian community, the Employment Court has ruled.
Born into the community at Haupiri on the South Island’s West Coast, the women were “taught from birth that they were to submit to male leadership in all aspects of their life, including their work” and any suggestion of “choice” was largely illusory, said a long-awaited court ruling released today.
Gloriavale leaders said in a statement they would appeal the decision.
Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Courage, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valour and Virginia Courage said they were effectively born into and kept in “servitude” - which is illegal in New Zealand - and had no power to choose their own path while living at Gloriavale.
During their high-profile case, Employment Court Chief Judge Christina Inglis heard claims from the women that they had to work “extremely long” hours serving the 600-strong population, mainly in “deliberately-gendered” jobs including “cooking, cleaning and washing clothes”.
“They were born into the community and imbued from birth with well-accepted norms as to their place in the community and the work they would be expected to do as they grew up,” said the judge in her decision.
“In this regard, the [women] knew from an early age that they would work on the teams, and their early life as girls was primed to that end.
“I have reached the conclusion, based on the evidence before the court, that the plaintiffs did their work - which admittedly benefitted the community - because that is what they were told to do; what each of them had been trained to accept from birth; and the consequences of not doing what was expected were dire and well known - exclusion from the community, from all that was familiar, from family and friends, and into a world they know little about, were ill-equipped to navigate and had been taught to fear.”
Chief Judge Inglis said the “pre-determined position of girls/women” at Gloriavale in respect to their work was “firmly set by the Overseeing Shepherd and the leadership group of subordinate Shepherds and trickled down from there”.
It was also “echoed by the evidence of current residents”.
“While the parties were at odds on a number of matters... it was common ground that Serenity, Anna, Rose, Crystal, Pearl and Virginia each worked on the teams during their time at Gloriavale and worked very hard while doing so.
“It is evident that their experience of the work was broadly typical for women working on the teams.
“But the extent of any ‘choice’ is largely illusory and must be seen on a spectrum. The [women] are, I find, close to the no-or-very little real choice end of the spectrum in terms of work.
“The evidence clearly established that none of the [women] made a decision about whether they worked on the teams or when they started work or where. Those decisions were effectively made for them by the Overseeing Shepherd, through his subordinate leaders and other senior people (including women) within the community.
“Each of the [women] was born into the community and they were taught from birth that they were to submit to male leadership in all aspects of their life, including their work.
“Because that had been deeply ingrained from a very young age, including through modelling by other women in the community, their ostensible voluntary progression to work on the rosters - from helping on duty day and in the kitchen or laundry to working full-time on the teams - followed as night follows day.”
Chief Judge Inglis said the women also lived under a constant threat at Gloriavale.
“The threat of being regarded as ‘out of unity’ clearly played a significant role in the minds of the [women] when it came to their work, and the expectations placed on them in respect of the work they undertook,” she said.
“They understood that, if they departed from the accepted norm and took issue with whether, where, when and how they were to work - in other words, if they did not submit - they would be considered to be ‘out of unity’ and eventually required to leave the community.
“Unity - and submission to the leadership - was reinforced by the practice of shunning, as the Overseeing Shepherd accepted, and public acts of shaming for various transgressions, which were referenced in evidence.
“While I accept that shaming may not have been a regular occurrence, the reality is that the impact of it when it did happen was significant.
“It had lingering, long-term, effects, and was particularly effective in disincentivising behaviour the Overseeing Shepherd and his subordinate leadership team did not approve of.”
She ruled that the women, though housed and fed by the community while living there, were not volunteers.
“The [women] worked under the strict direction and control of the Overseeing Shepherd and were subordinate to him. They worked strictly as required, for long hours and for years on end.
“The nature of the work was akin to working in a large-scale hostel, which would otherwise be paid for.
“The work was essential to the community’s operations. The [women] were rewarded for the work, namely by being able to remain in the community, and this was understood by all parties.
“They were not volunteers when working on the teams. They expected to be rewarded for the work they undertook and they were rewarded for their work. They are accordingly not excluded from the gateway to minimum entitlements and protections on this basis.”
Gloriavale leaders said in a statement they would appeal the Employment Court decision.
“The Employment Court has found that six former members of the Gloriavale Community, who brought proceedings against leaders and former leaders of the Community, were employees when they lived at Gloriavale and did domestic tasks on behalf of their families, friends and the community of families who live here,” the statement read.
“We believe the Employment Court decision is wrong and we intend to appeal. The decision has significant and wide-ranging implications beyond just our community. This includes how New Zealand faith-based communities, iwi and whanau choose to live and structure their household responsibilities.”
During the case, Gloriavale members accused the leavers and their supporters of attacking the community and its right to practice religion.
Chief Judge Inglis addressed that in her ruling.
“It is fair to say that the Gloriavale leadership approached the case from the outset as an attack on their religious beliefs and communal way of living,” she said.
“It is worth emphasising that the court is not concerned with the merits or otherwise of Gloriavale’s chosen way of life or its religious underpinnings.
“The court’s role is confined to determining employment status and whether workers are able to access minimum entitlements and protections, not spiritual issues or matters of religious dogma.”
Serenity Pilgrim spoke after the decision was released saying she and the other women felt relieved and vindicated.
“If you were born a girl, you were groomed to work,” she said.
“I haven’t read the whole judgement but from what I have seen, that’s clearly what the judge has understood and ruled.
Leavers’ lawyer Brian Henry was pleased the judge “got it”.
“It has been a long ten weeks of evidence and the sad aspect of the case is, as Her Honour has found, those living in the community are trained to be happy whilst working in what her honour called ‘unrelenting, grinding hard and physically and psychologically demanding work’,” he said.
“We have always known that the the concept that they’re volunteers distressed the plaintiffs and this decision vindicates their angst their bravery to come to court and face those who have dominated their life since birth, I cannot overstate the over courage of these young women and it has been an absolute privilege to act for them.”
The ruling is similar to one Chief Judge Inglis made last year in relation to a group of men who were born and raised at Gloriavale but later left the community.
Hosea Courage, Daniel Pilgrim and Levi Courage sought a declaration from the Employment Court around their status after they left school and worked at the commune and in Gloriavale-owned businesses during their teenage years.
Chief Judge Inglis ruled the men were all employees at Gloriavale - from when they were just 6 years old.
Further, the members undertook “strenuous, difficult, and sometimes dangerous” work when they were still legally required to be at school.
“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,” the judge said in the men’s decision.
“The plaintiffs worked regularly and for long hours, primarily for the benefit of Gloriavale’s commercial operations.
“The work was done for the reward of the necessities of life and the ability to remain in the community. It 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.”
The women’s case came before Chief Judge Inglis later in 2022 and included evidence from leavers and current Gloriavale members and leaders.
Women still living in the community rejected the claims made by the leavers, saying their accounts were incorrect, highly exaggerated, unrealistic and offensive.
They also felt that the “misleading” information about Gloriavale being canvassed in court hugely impacting the current community who just want to live their chosen lifestyle in peace.
Anna Leask is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008.
Police and ambulance staff on scene at night markets.