The Employment Court has ruled Gloriavale's overseeing shepherd Howard Temple is the employer of six women who formerly lived in the reclusive West Coast Christian community.
In a decision released on Friday, Employment Court Chief Judge Christina Inglis said her view was "the employer was the overseeing shepherd" at "all material times".
"Essentially that is because the evidence pointed squarely to the overseeing shepherd, at any particular point in time, being the ultimate controlling force within the community, specifically (although not exclusively) in respect of work and in respect of the assets of the community," the decision said. "The ultimate string-pulling function, and entitlement to do so by virtue of the community's foundational documents, sits firmly with the Overseeing Shepherd.
"From the inception of the Gloriavale Community until his death on May 15, 2018, the individual holding that role was Hopeful Christian and, from that date, Howard Temple."
An on-and-off hearing into the matter began last August when the former residents argued they were employees and not volunteers while living at Gloriavale.
Earlier this year, the Employment Court ruled the former residents were in fact employees.
Attention then turned to who was the employer of the women during their time at Gloriavale so they could be paid the wages they never received.
In October, barrister Brian Henry - representing the employees - argued others in Gloriavale leadership positions should also be considered employers.
"The big concern of plaintiffs is that Howard Temple will declare bankruptcy," Henry said. "Howard Temple has no assets and nothing to lose in the current state of the world."
Gloriavale's defence argued the financial capacity to meet the Employment Court judgement wasn't relevant to Temple's status as the employer.
In her decision on Friday, Judge Inglis said a case for compensation, lost wages and penalities - should the plaintiffs wish to pursue them - "fresh proceedings will need to be filed".
"Regardless of how the analysis is approached, the outcome is the same. The individual that holds the role of overseeing shepherd is liable to account for any alleged breaches against the plaintiff employees," she said. "I see it as wholly consistent with equity and good conscience that the overseeing shepherd be accountable for actions/inactions as employer and that the rights and obligations of the employment relationship roll over to the new overseeing shepherd on death."
