Minister not an employee

Methodist ministers cannot sue for unfair dismissal because they are not employees, the Supreme Court has held, in a case with implications for other ministers of religion.

President of the Methodist Conference v Preston [2013] UKSC 29 concerned an appeal by Hayley Preston, a minister in the Redruth Circuit of the Methodist Church until 2009.

Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines an employee as someone who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Sumption said: “The question whether an arrangement is a legally binding contract depends on the intentions of the parties.

“The mere fact that the arrangement includes the payment of a stipend, the provision of accommodation and recognised duties to be performed by the minister, does not without more resolve the issue. The question is whether the parties intended these benefits and burdens of the ministry to be the subject of a legally binding agreement between them.

“The decision in Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland [2006] 2 AC 28 is authority for the proposition that the spiritual character of the ministry did not give rise to a presumption against the contractual intention.”

Lord Sumption added: “Part of the vice of the earlier authorities was that many of them proceeded by way of abstract categorisation of ministers of religion generally.

“The correct approach is to examine the rules and practices of the particular church and any special arrangements made with the particular minister.”

Lords Wilson and Carnwath agreed. Lord Hope agreed, for his own reasons.

Dissenting, Lady Hale said: “Everything about this arrangement looks contractual, as did everything about the relationship in the Percy case.”