Methodist Minister was not an employee

The Supreme Court in the case of President of the Methodist Conference v Preston has held that a Methodist minister was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

The Supreme Court in the case of President of the Methodist Conference v Preston has held that a Methodist minister was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to protection from unfair dismissal.

The Supreme Court overturned the previous Court of Appeal decision and in doing so, restored the judgment of the original Employment Tribunal.

The Supreme Court found on the facts of the case that the Claimant was not employed under a contract of employment, and her rights and duties as a minister came about due to her status in the church’s constitution, rather than from any contract.

The minister had been ordained in 2003 and in 2006, she was appointed for a five year term to the post of superintendent minister to a group of congregations in Redruth, Cornwall.  However, after a number of incidents, she resigned from her post and tried to bring a claim of constructive unfair dismissal.  The question of her employment status was therefore raised as a preliminary point. 

The majority of the Supreme Court who heard the case found that unless a special arrangement is made with a particular minister, a minister’s rights and duties arise entirely from their status in the church’s constitution rather than from any contract.  Consideration had to be given to the manner in which the minister was engaged and the character of the terms governing their service. 

Whilst this case turned on its facts and is specific to Methodist ministers, it highlights the importance of ascertaining the employment status of individuals at the outset and ensuring that an appropriate contract is issued to all new starters.  In this case, the minister’s status was unclear which resulted in the issue having to be determined by an Employment Tribunal.