Gloriavale’s communal religious society is not a sham and there is no capitalist labour market hidden within the Christian community, the Employment Court has heard.
Shepherd Samuel Valor also apologised for Gloriavale’s part in “confusion” about its legal representation and urged Chief Judge Christina Inglis to hear the voices of Gloriavale mothers, in closing submissions in the “precedent-setting” case.
Six former Gloriavale women claim they were exploited and treated like slaves working on the community’s domestic teams and are seeking a ruling they were employees, rather than volunteers.
Chief Judge Christina Inglis being shown through various work and communal areas at Gloriavale. Photo / Anna Leask, File
Valor told the court on Wednesday that the women were not Gloriavale employees and members instead lived a sharing life, holding all things in common.
“The community’s foundational documents make it clear that there is no intention to create employment relationships within the community,” he said.
“Gloriavale’s communal economy is not a sham, unreal or artificial. One cannot pull back the curtain and find a capitalist labour market within.”
A court declaration the women were community employees would up-end Gloriavale’s communal economy, violating members’ deeply-held religious beliefs, Valor said.
He said he also wished to honour the Gloriavale women who had “chosen of their own free will to speak up for themselves during these proceedings”.
“They spoke with dignity, eloquence and conviction, there was no evidence of cognitive impairment, but rather they stood their ground and would not be intimidated by intense testing by counsels,” he said.
Gloriavale's Overseeing Shepherd Howard Temple. Photo / ACR Commission, File
“They endured courtroom procedures which would be more daunting than any meeting they would have faced in the community. It is unlikely that women of this calibre could be coerced or forced to act against their will.
“Their voices should be heard, for these people will be the most affected by the court’s decision. They are the mothers of Gloriavale.”
Gloriavale’s barrister Carter Pearce told the court the “precedent-setting” case could have huge ramifications for the Christian community.
“The fact that major changes would need to take place in this community to comply with a deeming of employment status demonstrates that the real nature of the existing relationship is not one of employment,” he said.
“Gloriavale’s communal religious society isn’t a sham or a front. It doesn’t require employment contracts to explain it. The ties that bind people together in this community are social, indeed familial and religious, rather than contractual.”
Members of the Gloriavale Christian Community, 50km from Greymouth, making iced buns for people attending the Pike River coal mine disaster remembrance service in 2010. Photo / Mark Mitchell, File
Pearce told the court the plaintiffs’ evidence was “exaggerated for effect” and the women had not complained about working on the teams or said they believed they were in an employment relationship while living at Gloriavale.
He said everyone benefited from the women’s work and there was no evidence Gloriavale’s leaders received more than anyone else, “other than the uncorroborated evidence about getting Milo and KFC”.
Gloriavale’s kitchen, laundry and sewing room were not businesses and the community’s foundational document What We Believe and its Declaration of Commitment could not be considered contracts, Pearce said.
“Gloriavale members are bound to each other not by contract, but by their vows,” he said.
The court heard the Labour Inspectorate would reopen an investigation into Gloriavale and consider enforcement action if the women were found to have been employees.
‘Male misogynist community’
On Tuesday, barrister Brian Henry accused Gloriavale of misleading him by appearing with a lawyer for closing submissions, despite claiming the community could no longer afford a legal team.
He had earlier agreed to reverse the normal order for closing submissions, “disclosing his hand”, because Valor and Shepherd Stephen Standfast had been representing themselves.
On Wednesday, Valor told Chief Judge Inglis he regretted the situation, which led to a day-long adjournment.
“I’d just like to apologise for yesterday for our part in the confusion. When we had the discussion about who was to go when, I didn’t realise the concessions they were making and it was a misunderstanding on my part,” he said.
“I can understand why they could feel that I took advantage of the concessions that they made, but that wasn’t my intention.”
The six women claim they worked long, hard hours on Gloriavale’s domestic teams, preparing food, cooking, cleaning and doing the laundry, and were exposed to workplace sexual harassment.
Gloriavale members with counsel outside the Employment Court in Christchurch. Photo / George Heard, File
On Wednesday, Henry tabled his written submissions in court, in which he described Gloriavale as a “male misogynist community” where women had no voice and no choice.
He said the six women were Gloriavale employees, living in servitude to the Overseeing Shepherd - who had absolute power and control over their work, what they wore and money - Shepherds and Servants.
“They are there by birth, they are not worldly, and have never had the opportunity to make a fully informed adult choice; they are not volunteers. They are deliberately entrapped in the community,” he said.
“They are taught their role is to not only to work but to be in subjugation of men, especially the leaders. The choice is one of do the work or leave.”
The document What We Believe created a “male utopia”, and while there was evidence of good men, there was also evidence of seriously bad men in the community, Henry said.
“These men live in a secretive dark life utilising the good to cover their reality, relying on the teachings of not co-operating with the NZ authorities, dealing with serious sexual crime by forgiveness and bullying the victim into silent submission,” he said.
Henry said the behaviour of Gloriavale founder Hopeful Christian - who was sentenced to five years in prison in 1995 for indecent assault - was not Christian, but “best described as sexually perverted conduct unacceptable in New Zealand society”.
