Former Gloriavale members seek damages after Employment Court win against Labour Inspectorate

Nine former members of the Gloriavale Christian community have filed a claim seeking compensation and legal declarations related to alleged slavery and servitude after an Employment Court ruled that the Labour Inspectorate made critical legal errors during two separate investigations into the group in 2017 and 2021. The individuals, Hosea Courage, Daniel Pilgrim, Levi Courage, Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Courage, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valor, and Virginia Courage, argue that the Labour Inspectorate failed to adequately address serious allegations of forced labour, child labour, and other employment law violations at the isolated religious settlement. The court’s decision came after Chief Judge Christina Inglis found that the Labour Inspectorate had misinterpreted its legal responsibilities and neglected to consider the role of children in the community. In her judgment, Inglis emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating that the case involved “very high stakes” due to concerns over child and forced labour in a closed community operating under an Old Testament-based philosophy. She noted that the Labour Inspectorate was aware of the presence of children working within Gloriavale and acknowledged their vulnerability, yet chose to exclude them from the investigation without justification. The former members previously won two landmark rulings in 2022 and 2023, which established that they were employees, not volunteers, at Gloriavale. These decisions were based on evidence showing that individuals, some as young as teenagers, had been engaged in labor across the community’s commercial operations, including moss and rendering factories, honey and dairy production, and large-scale kitchen and laundry facilities. Despite these findings, the Labour Inspectorate had initially dismissed the possibility of employment relationships among Gloriavale members. In 2017, concerns about child labor, extended working hours, and unsafe conditions at Gloriavale were brought to the attention of the Labour Inspectorate through Charities Services. A subsequent “desktop inquiry” suggested that if members were indeed employees, numerous employment law violations could exist. However, the report ultimately concluded that individuals at Gloriavale were more likely to be “partners” or “volunteers,” thereby limiting the inspectorate’s authority to proceed further. Three years later, in response to media coverage highlighting poor working conditions, two labour inspectors and four WorkSafe representatives visited Gloriavale in September 2020. Before a follow-up inspection in February 2021, the Labour Inspectorate opted to exclude children from the investigation. Crown lawyers explained this choice by citing the need for parental consent, the potential distress of interviewing minors, and the belief that focusing on adult participants would be more efficient. During the 2021 investigation, 39 current and 13 former members were interviewed. The resulting report reaffirmed that Gloriavale members could not be classified as employees, thus denying the inspectorate the right to pursue further inquiries. However, the Employment Court rejected this reasoning, pointing out that the inspectorate had erred in assuming it needed certainty about employment status before initiating an investigation. Instead, the court clarified that an inspector’s authority begins when there is “reasonable cause to believe” an employment relationship exists, not after it has been definitively proven. Chief Judge Inglis criticized the inspectorate for reversing the proper order of proceedings, stating that concluding there was no employment relationship before investigating was akin to “putting the cart before the horse.” She stressed that determining employment status should fall to the Employment Relations Authority or the courts, not the inspectorate itself. The court’s ruling has reignited scrutiny over how child labor concerns were handled during the inspections. While the Labour Inspectorate maintained that excluding children was a practical decision, critics argue that this approach overlooked the specific vulnerabilities of minors and potentially allowed ongoing exploitation to go unaddressed. The former members now seek not only financial redress but also formal recognition of the systemic failures that allowed such conditions to persist. Their case continues to unfold, with further legal arguments anticipated.