In May last year the Employment Court found three men had been employees since the age of 6 until they left the organisation as young men.
This was followed up last week by the court ruling six former female residents of the community had also been employees while working on teams which had the job of cooking, cleaning, washing and food preparation for the 600-strong community.
These teams were producing more than 11,000 meals and washing more than 17,000 items a week supporting the community and its business endeavours.
Employment Court Chief Judge Christina Inglis said the work required to produce these outcomes was grinding, hard, unrelenting, and physically and psychologically demanding. From a relatively young age each of the six women carried out work in the community progressing to fulltime with the teams at about the age of 15.
Those who have been raising concerns for years about Gloriavale’s work practices will be pleased at another court win, but frustrated about when anything might change significantly.
Gloriavale has indicated it will appeal the Employment Court ruling, and the matter of who is the actual employer within Gloriavale’s complex structure has yet to be addressed by the court as well as whether the labour inspector breached any statutory duty to the plaintiffs.
In an RNZ news report after last week’s ruling, the labour inspectorate, which previously concluded Gloriavale residents did not meet the legal definition of employees, referred to being committed to the all-of-government approach.
What that approach might be is anybody’s guess because it has not been obvious.
Lawyers for the ex-Gloriavale plaintiffs have said the police have been doing their best in a situation where community members are told not to talk to them, but we wonder about the adequacy of any input from WorkSafe New Zealand, Oranga Tamariki and even the Inland Revenue Department.
The Education Review Office was criticised in Judge Inglis’ ruling last year over giving its blessing to a work experience programme (when the children were 15 and still legally required to be at school) which was really the transition into fulltime work in the Gloriavale businesses.
She said the agency’s satisfaction with the programme must be viewed with significant caution.
It has been reported the ERO, which last visited the school in 2020, is reviewing it again.
Because the school is a private one, ERO’s reporting is more limited under the law.
The school does not need to follow the national curriculum, so it seems the limited education for girls has not been a concern.
However, in 2020 after the ERO raised concerns about the provision of a physically and emotionally safe space for pupils, it was satisfied the school had complied with its requests for improvements.
These included extending its safety checks on those working with pupils, clarifying the physical restraint policy, and explaining it to pupils and parents, and amending its child protection policy to show anyone could report suspected child abuse or a child at risk of harm.
Charities Services announced last May it had opened a new investigation into Gloriavale’s charitable status (after the community kept its charitable status after a 2016 investigation), but this has not concluded more than a year later.
How long any of this might drag on is unknown. It is hard to understand why there has been no political push for the government agencies to work together decisively and urgently to improve the lot of these vulnerable children rather than rely on those who have left the community to take time-consuming and expensive, and no doubt harrowing, court cases.
If it is fear of straying into religious rights which is holding politicians back, they need to heed what Judge Inglis has said about freedom of religion being subject to general laws, including employment law.
