The New Testament Church of God v Rev Stewart

A minister of religion is not subject to a general presumption that arrangements with a church lack legal effect. Whether there is a contract of employment depends on a careful assessment of the particular relationship, including its duties, remuneration, control, reporting arrangements and the parties’ objectively ascertained intention.

Spiritual duties and religious discipline are relevant but do not by themselves prevent contractual relations. A tribunal must give proper weight to religious beliefs which are inconsistent with an enforceable employment relationship. The mere fact that one party is a religious body and the other a minister does not establish such inconsistency or preclude an employment contract.

The respondent was an ordained minister and pastor of the appellant’s Harrow church. After his pastorate was terminated, he brought an unfair-dismissal claim. At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Tribunal at Watford held that he was an employee within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and directed that his claim proceed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the Church’s appeal, in proceedings identified as UKEAT029306DA. The Church appealed again, contending that the pastoral relationship could not create legal relations or, alternatively, could not be a contract of employment. It also relied on the Church’s religious character and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Appeal dismissed. The court unanimously upheld the Employment Tribunal’s preliminary decision that the respondent’s Harrow pastorate was performed under a contract of employment with the Church.

1. The tribunal had correctly focused on the pastorate at Harrow. The respondent’s continuing ordained status as minister or Bishop did not preclude a separate contractual relationship concerning his pastoral and administrative work there. The absence of a written contract was not decisive.

2. [2005] UKHL 73 did not overrule the earlier authorities, but it established that tribunals need not begin with a presumption that a minister and church did not intend legal relations. Spiritual motivation and spiritual discipline remain relevant considerations. They do not necessarily prevent a finding of contractual intention where the facts, conscientiously examined, justify it.

3. Pill LJ held that Article 9 required proper respect for the faith and doctrine of the particular religious body. Religious beliefs may show that an enforceable relationship would be inconsistent with the community’s practices, and the law should not readily impose such a relationship. Arden LJ agreed, adding that Article 9 is not engaged merely because the dispute is between a religious body and a minister; there must be a relevant belief inconsistent with the implication of a contract. Lawrence Collins LJ agreed that such beliefs may illuminate intention, while doubting that a contractual remedy would itself necessarily interfere with Article 9.

4. On the Tribunal’s findings, the respondent had substantial pastoral and administrative duties, regular reporting obligations, payment through the Church’s payroll with tax and national insurance deductions, and a relationship subject to disciplinary control. His autonomy in performance and the local source of funds did not negate employment. The Tribunal was entitled to find both contractual intention and a contract of service. The Church, rather than the local church or the United States body, was also properly identified as employer.

The decision does not make ministers of religion employees generally. Each case requires careful factual analysis of the particular religious organisation and relationship.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the Church’s appeal and affirmed the finding that the respondent was an employee.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the Church’s appeal from the Employment Tribunal: UKEAT029306DA.
• Employment Tribunal, Watford held at a preliminary hearing that the respondent was an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and directed that his unfair-dismissal claim proceed.