The claimant sought to assert that he as a minister of the Methodist Church who had been received into full connection had a contract of employment with the church. Having that contract, he said hat he had been unfairly dismissed.
Held: A binding contract of service might be made between a minister and his church, but not here.
Dillon LJ accepted that: ‘the spiritual nature of the work to be done by a person and the spiritual discipline to which that person is subject may not necessarily, in an appropriate context, exclude a contractual relationship under which work which is of a spiritual nature is to be done for others by a person who is subject to spiritual discipline. On any view the spiritual nature of the work and the spiritual discipline under which it is performed must be very relevant considerations when it has to be decided whether or not there is a contractual relationship.’ However: ‘Nonetheless the courts have repeatedly recognised what is and what is not a contract of service and I have no hesitation in concluding that the relationship between a church and a minister of religion is not apt, in the absence of clear indications of a contrary intention in the document, to be regulated by a contract of service.’
Dillon LJ said: ‘The question is therefore whether Mr Parfitt had a contract of service with the Methodist church or somebody on behalf of that church. That question has been broken down in argument in this court, as it was in both the lower courts, into two questions. 1. Did Mr Parfitt have a contract with the church? 2. If so, was that contract a contract of service?’ and ‘Even so, however, in my judgment, the spiritual nature of the functions of the minister, the spiritual nature of the act of ordination by the imposition of hands and the doctrinal standards of the Methodist Church which are so fundamental to that church and to the position of every minister in it make it impossible to conclude that any contract, let alone a contract of service, came into being between the newly ordained minister and the Methodist Church when the minister was received into full connection. The nature of the stipend supports this view. In the spiritual sense, the minister sets out to serve God as his master; I do not think that it is right to say that in the legal sense he is at the point of ordination undertaking by contract to serve the church or the conference as his master throughout the years of his ministry.
Equally I do not think it is right to say that any contract, let alone a contract of service, comes into being between the church and the minister when the minister accepts an invitation from a circuit steward to become a minister on a particular circuit and the invitation and acceptance are approved by the stationing committee of the conference. Despite the elaborate detail of the standing orders in relation to the manse and the furniture and fittings to be provided by the circuit for the newly appointed minister on the circuit, it seems to me that it follows, from a correct appreciation of the spiritual nature of the minister’s position and relationship with the church, that the arrangements between the minister and the church in relation to his stationing throughout his ministry and the spiritual discipline which the church is entitled to exercise over the minister in relation to his career remain non-contractual.
It is not in dispute that there are persons such as secretaries or caretakers who are employed by the Methodist Church or by its local circuits under contracts of service. But because of his spiritual position and functions a minister is in a very different position from such persons.
I would agree with Mr Parfitt’s submissions to this extent that the spiritual nature of the work to be done by a person and the spiritual discipline to which that person is subject may not necessarily, in an appropriate context, exclude a contractual relationship under which work which is of a spiritual nature is to be done for others by a person who is subject to spiritual discipline. On any view the spiritual nature of the work and the spiritual discipline under which it is performed must be very relevant considerations when it has to be decided whether or not there is a contractual relationship.’ However: ‘Nonetheless the courts have repeatedly recognised what is and what is not a contract of service and I have no hesitation in concluding that the relationship between a church and a minister of religion is not apt, in the absence of clear indications of a contrary intention in the document, to be regulated by a contract of service.’
May LJ adopted dicta of Waterhouse J in the EAT: ‘I consider that the starting point of any consideration of the relationship between the Methodist Church and its ministers must be an examination of the faith and doctrine to which they subscribe and they seek to further. The concept of a minister as a person called by God, a servant of God and the pastor of His local church members seems to me to be central to the relationship. [After citing authorities] I am unable to accept that either party to the present proceedings intended to create a contractual relationship.’ and ‘The starting point of any consideration of the relationship between the Methodist Church and its ministers must be an examination of the faith and doctrine to which they subscribe and they seek to further. The concept of a minister as a person called by God, a servant of God and the pastor of His local church members seems to me to be central to the relationship.’
John Donaldson MR concurred.
Judges:
Dillon LJ, May LJ, Sir John Donaldson MR
Citations:
[1984] ICR 176, [1984] QB 368, [1983] 3 All ER 747, [1984] IRLR 141, [1984] 2 WLR 84
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
Cited – Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
Cited – The New Testament Church of God v Reverend Stewart CA 19-Oct-2007
The appellant appealed a finding that the respondent had been its employee, saying he was a minister of religion.
Held: The judge had been entitled to find an intention to create legal relations, and therefore that the claimant was an . .
Cited – Birmingham Mosque Trust Ltd v Alavi EAT 3-Dec-1991
. .
Cited – Subhan v Enfield Mosque Society EAT 7-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – Reverend Doctor A B Coker v Diocese of Southwark; Bishop of Southwark and Diocesan Board of Finance CA 11-Jul-1997
A Church of England Assistant Curate is not an employee, but rather a holder of an ecclesiastical office. There is a presumption that ministers of religion were office-holders who did not serve under a contract of employment. Accordingly he is not . .
Cited – Addy and Others’ Application for Judicial Review CA 18-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Khan v Oxford City Mosque Society EAT 23-Jul-1998
. .
Cited – New Testament Church of God v Stewart EAT 27-Oct-2006
EAT The tribunal had been correct in finding that as between the church and a pastor there had been an intention to enter into legal relations with sufficient characteristics of a contract of service. . .
Cited – Moore v The President of The Methodist Conference EAT 15-Mar-2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
Claimant, a Methodist minister, brought proceedings for unfair dismissal – Tribunal held that it was bound by President of Methodist Church Conference . .
Cited – Singh v The Members of The Management Committe of The Bristol Sikh Temple and Others EAT 14-Feb-2012
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT – Worker
The issue was whether the Priest at a Sikh Temple was a ‘worker’ within section 54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. . .
Cited – Methodist Conference v Preston SC 15-May-2013
Minister was not an employee
The claimant asserted unfair dismissal. The Conference said that as an ordained minister she was not an employee, and was outwith the jurisdiction of such a claim.
Held: The Conference’s appeal succeeded (Baroness Hale dissenting). The essence . .
Cited – Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others CA 14-Nov-2013
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated . .
Cited – Sharpe v The Bishop of Worcester CA 30-Apr-2015
Reverend Sharpe applied for the post of Rector of Teme Valley South. The right to present (or nominate) a member of the clergy to this living was vested in Mr and Mrs Miles but a person could not be nominated without the Bishop’s approval, which was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Ecclesiastical
Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.236416
Comments are closed.