The analogy between Ministry and employment is easily made, though most denominations (including PCANZ) do not employ their Ministers. Members of the clergy serve and report to the Church similar to how an employee might serve and report to his or her employer, but ministers usually intend to answer the call of God. This intention is the critical difference.
This was brought into sharp focus in the case of Mabon v Conference of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, which continues to influence how different denominations understand the legal status of their clergy.
The Mabon Case
Reverend John Mabon was appointed to a shared ministry in Woodville under the auspices of the Methodist Church of New Zealand. Following his dismissal, he brought a claim under the Employment Contracts Act 1991 (now Employment Relations Act 2000), arguing that he had been unjustifiably dismissed and was therefore entitled to bring a personal grievance claim against the Church as an employee.
So, was Reverend Mabon an employee of the Methodist Church under the Employment Contracts Act 1991? This was the question for the Court. If Reverend Mabon was an employee, he would have been entitled to the protections afforded to employees, including minimum entitlements and the ability to require the employer to justify his dismissal.
The Court of Appeal undertook a detailed examination of the legal and ecclesiastical context of Reverend Mabon’s role. The Court began by considering the statutory definition of an “employee”—someone “employed” to do work for hire or reward. It then turned to the question of intent.
To infer an employment relationship between two parties, the parties must have led one another to reasonably believe that the other intended to be bound to an employment relationship. The Methodist Church’s annually revised Laws and Regulations stated that “…a minister is not an employee of the Church”. This reflected the Church’s view that ministry is a spiritual calling rather than a contractual relationship. Consequently, Reverend Mabon’s ordination and appointment were framed in spiritual and ecclesiastical terms, not contractual ones.
The Court noted that ministers like Reverend Mabon were treated as employees for tax and superannuation purposes but found that these arrangements were administrative conveniences rather than evidence of an employment relationship. The Church had negotiated with the IRD on the basis that ministers were not its employees. These elements were ancillary to the relationship formed which, while relevant, were not determinative. The Court concluded that there was no clear intention to create legal relations. The letter of appointment and the Church’s internal rules did not constitute a contract of employment.
The Court cited a consistent line of authority, including President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt and Davies v Presbyterian Church of Wales, which support the view that clergy are not employees unless there is an express intention to form that kind of relationship.
Implications for the Presbyterian Church
PCANZ, like the Methodist Church, does not treat its ministers as employees. Instead, ministers are called and ordained into a covenantal relationship with the Church, governed by its Book of Order and spiritual oversight. The Mabon decision affirms this distinction and provides clarity: unless there is a clear, express intention to form an employment relationship, ministers are unlikely to be considered employees under New Zealand law.
The Court of Appeal later dismissed Reverend Mabon’s appeal, upholding the finding that he was not an employee and therefore could not bring a personal grievance under the Employment Contracts Act 1991.
While the principles from Mabon that related to ecclesiastical cases remain relevant and were more recently recognised in the Employment Court (Below v Salvation Army New Zealand Trust [2017] NZEmpC 87), the legal test for determining whether someone is an employee has changed under the Employment Relations Act 2000.
For more information on the modern approach to assessing whether a worker is an employee, see our blog – https://frontlinelaw.co.nz/blog/employment-types/
The first step in getting support is to talk with a lawyer from Frontline Law about your situation and see what options we can offer you. Contact Frontline Law for a free initial consultation.
*The information in this blog post is general in nature and is not legal advice. If you need advice, you should contact us about your specific situation.
