Legal History

Mammon and the Pastor

By G.C. Seabourne

    This recent case concerns employment law, and its application to the role of ministers of religion. As is often the case with matters theological, as many questions are raised by it as are resolved.
    Mr Stewart was a long-standing member of the New Testament Church of God, a body which appears to be fundamentalist, US-derived and evangelical. He worked as a driving instructor, then went into church duties full time, in a prosperous church in Harrow. Going through the ranks, he was first  an ?exhorter?, then a licensed minister, and at last an ordained minister, who, for unexplained reasons was also able to use the title ?Bishop?.
    Problems arose when the Church decided that Mr Stewart had misappropriated £60,000, and dismissed him. He considered this a matter of unfair dismissal. The Church denied this, as, it said, he was not an employee. There was various paperwork, though not a formal contract of employment. The Church claimed that there was not an intention to create legal relations between a minister of religion and his church. This traditional view has been challenged as a general principle in recent years, (particularly in Percy [2005] UKHL 73). It was re-examined with a fresh perspective in this case.
    The Court of Appeal held against the Church in the end, because of the presence of a large amount of formality and certainty, in pensions, P 45s and definite duties. Stressing the application of Article 9 of the Convention, however, it was made clear that  much may depend on the particular beliefs of a sect. If it is a tenet that there would be no legally enforceable contract, then that could be used. Examining the statements of the Church of God, however, the court decided that the lower tribunal in this case had been entitled to conclude that there was a contract of employment, and no decided view against such legal relations.
    Perhaps the Church had done itself no favours by being so organised, for, far from being a herd of desert Stylites, this group had international links and a sizeable UK presence, rule books, a head office in Northampton, payrolls and provision for pensions. In the UK, the group is a company limited by guaranteee and a charity. It therefore did not look very much like a body which would have a problem with entering into legal relations.
    In terms of the evidence, it is interesting that the court and tribunal seem to have concentrated on the Church?s administrative rules, as a source for its beliefs and tenets. I wonder if there was any attempt to make arguments from the Bible ? for a group like this, surely the primary source. Even in the Church?s own ?rule book?, however, the stress laid on the spiritual vocation aspect of ministry seems to make it arguable that ministry was not a matter of employment contracts.
    For the future, this judgment gives us the enticing prospect of employment tribunals of all levels having to analyse extremely complex questions of theology. Bodies like the church in this case may also find it necessary to rewrite their rulebooks, or make more explicit their views on the position of clergy within their organisations.
 

Full post as published by Common Lawyer on October 22, 2007 (boomark / email).