The President of the Methodist Conference v Preston

The Supreme Court has given judgment in the case of President of the Methodist Conference v Preston, overturning the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and finding that Methodist ministers are not employees.

Ms Preston, the Respondent, wished to bring a claim against the Church for unfair dismissal.  The question at issue in the appeal was whether the Respondent was an ‘employee’ so as to enjoy the right not to be unfairly dismissed under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.  Section 230 of that Act defines an employee as someone who has entered into, or works under, a contract of service (or apprenticeship).

The Employment Tribunal had originally held that the Respondent was not an employee.  That decision was reversed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal [2011] ICR 819 in a decision subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal [2012] QB 735.  Both the EAT and the Court of Appeal considered that a previous Court of Appeal authority on the issue, President of the Methodist Conference v Parfitt [1984] ICR 176, was no longer good law in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Percy v National Mission of the Church of Scotland [2006] 2 AC 28, a sex discrimination case.

The Supreme Court (Baroness Hale dissenting) held, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the constitution and standing orders of the Methodist Church, and of the arrangements made with the Respondent by the Church, that there was no contract of employment between the Respondent and the Church.  The arrangements between the parties were inconsistent with contractual intention for a number of reasons including:  the lifelong commitment of the minister; the exclusion of any right of unilateral resignation; and the characterisation of the stipend as maintenance and support (rather than payment for services rendered).  The courts below had over-analysed the decision in Percy and had paid insufficient attention to the constitutional documents which were the foundation of the Respondent’s relationship with the Church.  The basis of her rights and duties was to be found in those provisions and not in any arrangement of the kind that could be said to amount to a contract.  Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and the order of the Employment Tribunal dismissing the Respondent’s claim would be restored.

Click on the link to read the full judgment: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0015_Judgment.pdf 

Dinah Rose QC and Emma Dixon appeared for the President of the Methodist Conference, instructed by Pothecary Witham Weld.