Moore v The President Of The Methodist Conference (Jurisdictional Points : Worker, employee or neither)

An ordained Methodist minister’s entitlement to complain of unfair dismissal depends on whether she entered or worked under a contract of employment within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Although the Court of Appeal had previously held that a Methodist minister was not employed under such a contract, an appeal was sufficiently arguable where the minister’s relationship displayed conventional employment features and later authority had questioned the assumption that church-minister arrangements lacked legal effect. The appeal was therefore allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The claimant was an ordained minister in Full Connection with the Methodist Church. She received a stipend, accommodation, pension, holiday and sick pay, payslips, and was subject to disciplinary and appraisal procedures.

She sought to establish a right not to be unfairly dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the effect of The President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt [1984] IRLR 176, which had held that a Methodist minister was not employed under a contract of employment. The central question was whether that decision was distinguishable, whether its reasoning remained applicable, or whether changes to the Methodist Church’s constitutional documents undermined its basis.

1. The claimant’s right not to be unfairly dismissed depended on whether she had entered or worked under a contract of employment within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

2. The President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt [1984] IRLR 176 was potentially decisive against the claimant. Its application nevertheless required examination of whether the present facts differed materially, whether its reasoning continued to apply, and whether subsequent changes to the Methodist Church’s constitutional documents affected its foundation.

3. The claimant’s relationship with the Methodist Church possessed numerous conventional employment characteristics, including remuneration, accommodation, pension, leave and sickness benefits, payslips, tax and national insurance deductions, disciplinary procedures and performance appraisal. These matters made it sufficiently arguable that legally binding employment obligations existed.

4. The reasoning in Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission [2006] IRLR 195 was material. The House of Lords had treated comparable features as tending to establish legally binding obligations, and Lord Nichols had considered that church-minister employment arrangements should not lightly be treated as having no legal effect. The appeal was accordingly allowed to proceed to a full hearing on all grounds.

The judgment was given at a preliminary hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The lower tribunal’s decision and citation were not stated in the judgment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed appeal was sufficiently arguable to proceed to a full hearing.