The President of the Methodist Conference v Preston

A minister’s spiritual role does not create a general presumption that the parties lacked an intention to create legal relations. The issue is objective and fact-sensitive. Where an arrangement has contractual indicia, spiritual duties alone cannot deny it contractual effect. A minister may also be an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996; professional discretion and religious motivation do not prevent a contract of service. Article 9 does not automatically apply merely because a dispute involves a religious body and a minister. It becomes relevant where religious beliefs are contrary to or inconsistent with the contract. If employee status is established, the Employment Tribunal determines whether dismissal was unfair.

The respondent, an ordained Methodist minister appointed as a superintendent minister, resigned and brought an unfair constructive dismissal claim. The Employment Tribunal held that she was not an employee, considering itself bound by President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt [1984] ICR 176. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed her appeal, holding that the reasoning in Parfitt could not stand with Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland [2006] 2 AC 28. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Percy had impliedly displaced Parfitt, whether the arrangement was a contract of service, and whether Article 9 provided the Church with a defence.

Appeal dismissed. Maurice Kay LJ gave the leading judgment, with Longmore LJ and Sir David Keene agreeing.

1. The abandonment of a general or rebuttable presumption that ministers lacked an intention to create legal relations formed part of the ratio in Percy [2006] 2 AC 28. The reasoning in Parfitt [1984] ICR 176, which depended on that presumption and treated stationing as non-contractual, could no longer stand. The spiritual nature of ministerial work remained relevant, but could not by itself negate contractual effect where the arrangement otherwise bore the indicia of legal obligation (paras [21]-[25]).
2. The question whether the contract was one of service had to be determined by conventional principles applied to the whole arrangement. The EAT was entitled to rely on regular remuneration, sick pay, accommodation, appraisal, supervision, disciplinary procedures, working time and holiday arrangements. Professional discretion and the spiritual character of the role were not inconsistent with employee status. The EAT had all relevant material and was entitled to determine the issue without remission (paras [26]-[28]).
3. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms had a modest role. The involvement of a religious body or minister did not itself engage Article 9. There had to be religious beliefs contrary to or inconsistent with the implied contract. The evidence did not establish that Methodist doctrine was inconsistent with contractual or statutory remedies, and the existence of employment proceedings did not require the Tribunal to determine disputed doctrine (paras [29]-[34]).
4. A minister may be an employee notwithstanding exclusively spiritual duties. If employee status is established, the Employment Tribunal must determine whether the statutory requirements for unfair dismissal are met. The reliance on Davies v Presbyterian Church of Wales [1986] 1 WLR 323 as a free-standing bar added nothing to the appeal (paras [35]-[37]).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal and upheld the EAT’s conclusion that the respondent’s relationship with the Church was contractual and constituted a contract of service: [2011] EWCA Civ 1581.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal, holding that the Employment Tribunal had erred in simply following Parfitt: UKEAT/0219/10DM.
3. Employment Tribunal held that the respondent was not an employee within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.