The President of the Methodist Conference v Preston

The Court of Appeal dismissed the President of the Methodist Conference's appeal and agreed with the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the respondent minister could, on the facts, be regarded as working under a contract of employment within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The court held that the House of Lords decision in Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland removed any general presumption that the spiritual nature of ministry precludes contractual relations and that Parfitt could not be maintained in the light of Percy. The court concluded that the indicia of a contract of service were present (regular stipend, sick pay entitlement, provision of accommodation, appraisal and some supervision, disciplinary procedures, identifiable working time and an initial five-year appointment). Article 9 ECHR did not bar the tribunal’s jurisdiction where no doctrine forbade resort to legal remedies. Davies v Presbyterian Church of Wales did not prevent a tribunal from finding a contract of employment.

The respondent, ordained and stationed as a Methodist minister, resigned and brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal claiming unfair constructive dismissal. The preliminary issue was whether she was an "employee" under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The ET, applying the Court of Appeal decision in President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt [1984] ICR 176, held there was no contract of employment and dismissed the claim.

The respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (UKEAT/0219/10/DM). The EAT allowed the appeal, concluding that the reasoning of Parfitt could not be sustained after the House of Lords' decision in Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland [2006] 2 AC 28 and that the facts permitted a finding of a contract of service. The present appeal was from that EAT decision.

Issues considered by the Court of Appeal:

• Whether Parfitt remains binding after Percy and whether the court should apply the Young v Bristol Aeroplane principle to depart from Parfitt;
• Whether the relationship between the respondent and the Methodist Church was contractual and, if so, whether it was a contract of service;
• Whether Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the Church's doctrines prevented the tribunal from determining the dispute;
• The relevance of Davies v Presbyterian Church of Wales and the decision in New Testament Church of God v Stewart.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT. It concluded that Percy abandoned any general presumption against intention to create legal relations in ministerial appointments and that Parfitt's reasoning was undermined. The court applied conventional indicia of employment and found they pointed to a contract of service on the facts (regular remuneration, sick pay, accommodation, appraisal and supervision, disciplinary procedures, identifiable working time and a fixed initial stationing). The court held that Article 9 did not preclude the tribunal’s consideration because there was no evidence that contractual recognition offended core religious tenets or required determination of doctrine. The Davies point added nothing to the Percy analysis. The appeal was dismissed.

This appellate appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the reasoning in Parfitt could not be sustained in the light of Percy, that the spiritual nature of ministry alone cannot exclude contractual effect, and that on the agreed facts the respondent's relationship with the Church bore the indicia of a contract of service. Article 9 ECHR did not prevent the tribunal from adjudicating the matter.

Employment Tribunal: preliminary issue decided for the Church, claim dismissed (pre-hearing review 16 December 2009). Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal allowed, UKEAT/0219/10/DM (judgment 15 March 2011). Court of Appeal: appeal dismissed [2011] EWCA Civ 1581 (judgment 20 December 2011).