|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mark Sharpe - clergy employment issues
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
The Mark Sharpe case has been rumbling on for a number of years.
You can find old threads about it in Oblivion:
Here
and
Here
For those new to this case, Mark Sharpe was a priest in Worcester Diocese who suffered (along with his whole family) huge amounts of intimidation and bullying. He ended up taking early retirement through ill-health. He has been trying to sue the Diocese for failing to provide the support which was due to him. The case has hinged on whether or not he could be treated as an employee - and so come under the protection of employment rights.
It now appears that he has won his employment tribunal appeal: Press release from Unite the Union
The key part of the press release is this:
quote:
Today’s (Thursday 28 November) decision by Mrs Justice Cox says, in essence, that Rev Sharpe’s working arrangements included all of the key elements of a contract to allow the working relationship to be construed so that Rev Sharpe was an employee.
This now opens the way for a further employment tribunal to investigate the substantive issues that he had to endure while rector at Hanley Broadheath, near Worcester.
I haven't had a chance to read the full judgement yet, but this has the potential to create quite some unease in church hierarchies (not just for the C of E).
My initial guess, though, is that we haven't heard the last of this yet and that the C of E lawyers will shortly saddle up for another level of appeal. I would be interested to know exactly how much has already been spent on legal fees for this single case. I am guessing that it is vastly more than anything which may eventually be paid to Mark Sharpe in compensation (should he now win his case that the Diocese were negligent).
My personal reaction is that this decision is unsurprising and to be welcomed. For too long, the C of E (and other denominational structures) have sought to avoid their proper responsibilities of care to their ministers.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Hmmm, interesting. It would be interesting to know if there are any cases of Ministers in more "congregationalist" settings suffering (or battling) similarly - for our relationships are primarily with the local church rather than with the denomination as a whole. We are not technically considered to be "employees" but "office-holders" - although we do have employed status with regard to our National Insurance contributions.
I agreed to "Terms of Appointment" which aim "to express the formal relationship between the office holder and the church which has called him/her" and state that "good practice arises out of good relationships built on mutual trust".
However it is explicitly stated that "these recommended Terms of Appointment do not bring about a ‘contract of service’ or in any way affect the minister’s status as the ‘holder of an office’". Indeed, the denomination - in common with others - has had extensive discussions with the Department of Employment precisely to make this point.
[ 28. November 2013, 17:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
........My personal reaction is that this decision is unsurprising and to be welcomed. For too long, the C of E (and other denominational structures) have sought to avoid their proper responsibilities of care to their ministers.
I agree. The current structures allow for the hierarchy to exercise power while avoiding accountability for their actions.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I agree too - IMO it's incredible that churches have been able to get away with this have your cake and eat it approach. Priests et al should either be self-employed (on the same basis as builders, tutors, book-keepers etc.) or employed (on the same basis as any other employee). Anything would be special pleading on the part of the churches, and discriminatory towards those particular churches on the part of the state.
And breathe...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Hmmm, interesting. It would be interesting to know if there are any cases of Ministers in more "congregationalist" settings suffering (or battling) similarly - for our relationships are primarily with the local church rather than with the denomination as a whole. We are not technically considered to be "employees" but "office-holders" - although we do have employed status with regard to our National Insurance contributions.
As I understand it (big hint that I am certainly NOT an expert), Baptist ministers are even more certainly "employees" than C of E ministers. The legal position is far clearer than in the C of E, in that the local church can easily be seen as the "employer". In the C of E, it is far harder to see who might be the "employer" - is it the Bishop, the Diocesan Board of Finance, or the Church Commissioners?
I have heard rumours that the Baptist Union bods have (unofficially) thrown in the towel on this one. Their position is untenable and all it will take is for one minister to dip their toes in the waters of employment rights. As far as I know, there isn't a case similar to Mark Sharpe in the Baptist Union - but that might well be because they are eager to settle out of court rather than face almost certain defeat.
I know that I have said this before, but I think it bears repeating:
If the hierarchy of the C of E don't want clergy to be regarded as "employees" in terms of employment rights, then they shouldn't have increasingly acted like "employers". The situation they now find themselves in arises directly from the fact that reasonable judges have looked at the way that they act and have (reasonably) concluded that they are de facto "employers".
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
So according to Pete173 back in 2011, now the whole caboodle changes?
I'm feeling kinda sorry for our Bishops today, it's been a sod of a day for them
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I vaguely recall being told that the line in the past has been that if clergy are employees then God is the employer.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
The employer is whoever pays the wages. If the wages come from the Diocese, then istm, the Diocese is the employer.
God's wages come later.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
I agree. The current structures allow for the hierarchy to exercise power while avoiding accountability for their actions.
This seems consistent with just about everything I have experienced from the church. The fine words we hear are not backed up by any real interest in doing the right thing.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Is this thread about whose version of the story we believe, whether a much put upon vicar or parish has been appallingly calumnified? The stories are so much at variance that either one version or both of them must be untrue, and I'm not going even to venture to guess which. Or is it about whether incumbents ought to be able to take their diocese/PCC/bishop to an Industrial Tribunal?
I can see why a person might want to be able to, but there are serious downsides you may not have thought of. First of all, I think some if not all incumbents pay tax under Schedule DII as self-employed people. If they are employees, that makes them Schedule E which is much less accommodating on which of one's expenses one can charge against tax.
If, for example, theological books or vestments are claimable, an employee would probably have to get the PCC to buy them, and when he or she moved on, would have to leave them behind for their successor.
Second, and less mercenary, if an incumbent is employed by his/her bishop or diocese, he/she is directly under them in management terms. It means the telephone can ring, the bishop/archdeacon/area dean/a churchwarden/somebody in the diocesan office can say "Is that Grouch? I've just heard Mr X has been taken ill. Be at the hospital in twenty minutes.", or "I've heard you've been using the Roman Canon/omitting the Gospel Canticle/whatever. Desist", in both cases with an implied 'or else', which means something.
A key distinction between being employed and not being, is whether one is under the direct direction of someone else, who can require you to spend your time on tasks they designate, rather than giving you the freedom to decide results within a broader framework.
You can say, if you wish, 'that's not how ministry's supposed to be done', but if you are just the Bishop's jobsworth, why not? I'd imagine you'd assume if you have a curate that you can expect them to run around at your behest.
I'd agree that the present position is a muddly mess. But don't necessarily hope for what you wish for.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A key distinction between being employed and not being, is whether one is under the direct direction of someone else, who can require you to spend your time on tasks they designate, rather than giving you the freedom to decide results within a broader framework.
Aren't priests supposed - in theory - to submit to their bishops anyway?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
First of all, I think some if not all incumbents pay tax under Schedule DII as self-employed people. If they are employees, that makes them Schedule E which is much less accommodating on which of one's expenses one can charge against tax.
Clergy tax arrangements are notoriously complex. There is a good argument to be made for them to be simplified (although that would threaten the jobs of the clergy tax consultants I know!). But attaining "employee" status would not necessarily demand such a change. Clergy would still be "office holders".
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, and less mercenary, if an incumbent is employed by his/her bishop or diocese, he/she is directly under them in management terms. It means the telephone can ring, the bishop/archdeacon/area dean/a churchwarden/somebody in the diocesan office can say "Is that Grouch? I've just heard Mr X has been taken ill. Be at the hospital in twenty minutes.", or "I've heard you've been using the Roman Canon/omitting the Gospel Canticle/whatever. Desist", in both cases with an implied 'or else', which means something.
I think I would want to challenge this assumption quite strongly. It is the scare story put up by the bishops - "you don't want to be managed by us and we don't want to manage you".
The argument is not that clergy should become employees, pure and simple, but that their position as "office holders" should be given employer status for the purposes of employment rights. There is no desire on the part of Unite (of which I am a member) for clergy to give up the freedoms which are associated with their role. And it is a false scare for bishops to claim that this is the only alternative to the present situation. It is perfectly reasonable and achievable for clergy to get the statutory protection that they need, whilst still having the freedom to minister that they also need.
No-one (apart from a few micro-managing archdeacons) wants a system where clergy are given direction from bishops and archdeacons along the lines you mention. Part of my annoyance with this matter is that bishops have repeatedly misrepresented the key matters of the argument - either because they don't understand it themselves or because they are deliberately creating mischief. You can take your choice as which is most likely.
(BTW - One reason why bishops are so keen to avoid clergy getting full protection under employment legislation is that if this happened, discrimination based on one's sexuality would be wide open to legal challenge. Bishops really don't want to have THAT can of worms opened)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The Methodist Church "won" on this subject quite recently.
In the Supreme Court, no less
Yes - that was strange, I must admit. The previous appeal court judgment was so decisive, that I couldn't understand how it could be so easily overturned. And I have to say that the reasons given by the Supreme Court don't actually make much sense. I certainly don't see how they negate the previous rationale. And I suspect that this present case will now throw that judgement back into the mixer.
This story is going to run and run, for sure.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I can't really see how any particular judgement could reasonably apply across denominations anyway.
In Methodism, ministers get stationed - so that could amount to an initial, fixed term contract (normally of 5 years). But at the end of that, the minister can seek an extension to their appointment, that the circuit could refuse. Does that mean they've been sacked? It would be very difficult to make that the case I think - the whole circuit is entitled to be consulted and to come to a view. Trying to hold one person responsible for that wouldn't be very practical.
But the situation for appointments is different in other denominations, and so the question of who the "employer" is etc etc inevitably changes.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... There is no desire on the part of Unite (of which I am a member) for clergy to give up the freedoms which are associated with their role. ...
I bet there isn't, but that is wanting to have one's cake and eat it. The obverse of that vision is that it would fix the bishops/church/diocese/PCCs etc with responsibility but without the power to manage it. Responsibility without power is always an impossible and unfair position to be placed in. We all know whose prerogative is power without responsibility.
Besides, do you really think Unite is backing this case because of its deep concern for the individual priest involved, rather than taking a flyer on the prospect that if the case goes its way, it will have a fantastic opportunity to expand into a new area and recruit a whole lot of new members, at a time when union membership is falling?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
The employer is whoever pays the wages. If the wages come from the Diocese, then istm, the Diocese is the employer.
If a parish is paying its share, then the money is actually coming from the parish, and in particular the PCC, which is the legal entity. (Historically this would have been the case, with the parish paying its tithe to the rector.) So, Mark Sharpe's employer could be regarded as the very folk with whom he was having problems!
And then the patronage system in the CofE adds another twist. Technically, the patron proposes priests for the parish, the parish representatives can refuse a proposal, and when accepted, the bishop licenses the priest to the parish. I don't know if Mark Sharpe held the living, or was simply licensed as priest in charge. If the former, then the patron could be construed as the employer. If the patron is the diocesan bishop (as is quite common) then that would simplify things.
I have no idea if a parish priest in the CofE has any kind of contract with the diocese which could be construed as a contract of employment.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Hum, does the public employ nurses because the money comes out of general taxation?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
The employer is whoever pays the wages. If the wages come from the Diocese, then istm, the Diocese is the employer.
If a parish is paying its share, then the money is actually coming from the parish, and in particular the PCC, which is the legal entity. (Historically this would have been the case, with the parish paying its tithe to the rector.) So, Mark Sharpe's employer could be regarded as the very folk with whom he was having problems!
That's no more true than the person who tries to threaten a cashier at a supermarket into enabling their fraud with the "I pay your wages, I'm the customer so I'm right" line.
Money is fungible, you can't work out the identity of an employer just by chasing where it "came from."
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
The employer is whoever pays the wages. If the wages come from the Diocese, then istm, the Diocese is the employer.
If a parish is paying its share, then the money is actually coming from the parish, and in particular the PCC, which is the legal entity. (Historically this would have been the case, with the parish paying its tithe to the rector.) So, Mark Sharpe's employer could be regarded as the very folk with whom he was having problems!
No, I am afraid that does not work.
Civil servants are not regarded as employees of tax payers even though tax payers ultimately pay their wages. They are paid by their employer; the Government, and therefore they are Government employees and public servants.
The same applies to the Diocese. Regardless of where the Diocese gets its money from, it pays clergy their stipends. Therefore those clergy are Diocesan employees, and parish servants.
Rev'd Sharpe was paid by the Diocese, not by the Parish; his working conditions were determined by the Diocese, and he held his Parish at the behest of the Bishop. Therefore in my view it is appropriate to regard him as a Diocesan employee, not an employee of the PCC or the churchwardens.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Wasn't there a case about 2006 where the House of Lords, on appeal from the Court of Session in Edinburgh, held that a church of Scotland minister Helen Percy was an employee for purpose of employment rights legislation.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
Just a general observation here:
It is a sad day when a church has to be held accountable in a civil court for their anti-labour practices. The church should be proactively setting an excellent standard in this area, for society needs the church to shine light on dark places rather than being one of the darkest places themselves.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Hmmm, interesting. It would be interesting to know if there are any cases of Ministers in more "congregationalist" settings suffering (or battling) similarly - for our relationships are primarily with the local church rather than with the denomination as a whole. We are not technically considered to be "employees" but "office-holders" - although we do have employed status with regard to our National Insurance contributions.
I agreed to "Terms of Appointment" which aim "to express the formal relationship between the office holder and the church which has called him/her" and state that "good practice arises out of good relationships built on mutual trust".
However it is explicitly stated that "these recommended Terms of Appointment do not bring about a ‘contract of service’ or in any way affect the minister’s status as the ‘holder of an office’". Indeed, the denomination - in common with others - has had extensive discussions with the Department of Employment precisely to make this point.
Trainfan - PM for more info on this.
One thing I would say - extensive discussions with anyone don't make laws: case law does, based on the precedent established court decisions.
One denomination at least has paid someone off rather than allow this to take its course. As I say a PM gets a bit more from the inside ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
As I understand it (big hint that I am certainly NOT an expert), Baptist ministers are even more certainly "employees" than C of E ministers.
I have heard rumours that the Baptist Union bods have (unofficially) thrown in the towel on this one. Their position is untenable and all it will take is for one minister to dip their toes in the waters of employment rights.
As far as I know, there isn't a case similar to Mark Sharpe in the Baptist Union - but that might well be because they are eager to settle out of court rather than face almost certain defeat.
Well, writing from a Baptist perspective, I can you that you are on the money.
Every case of this ilk (and I know of a few from 1st hand knowledge) has been settled pre court hearing. PM for more details if you like.
[codefix]
[ 30. November 2013, 07:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Just a general observation here:
It is a sad day when a church has to be held accountable in a civil court for their anti-labour practices. The church should be proactively setting an excellent standard in this area, for society needs the church to shine light on dark places rather than being one of the darkest places themselves.
The Church isn't above the civil law and it needs to set an example by accepting this. No large institution should be left to police itself. Whether it's bankers or bishops they have the same instincts for self-preservation and the same talent for rationalising deception when it suits them.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The church should be proactively setting an excellent standard in this area, for society needs the church to shine light on dark places rather than being one of the darkest places themselves.
The problem here revolves precisely around the Church's vision of its calling and identity.
I was a full-time pastor of an independent church for ten years having been part-time for several years before that, and helped set up the terms and conditions of my own post. At the time I sort of knew that I had no unemployment protection or other rights, but it seemed like a risk worth taking to help build a "city on a hill" precisely to "shine light into dark places" - and of course the more you are fired up with a vision like that, the less likely you are to think that anything could go wrong.
When it did all go wrong, I would have definitely considered taking my case to court if I had had a leg to stand on, and I have devoted quite a lot of time since then to fighting, in various arenas, for full-time christian workers to be treated more fairly from an employment perspective and made more aware of just what they are signing up to.
That said, I'm always a bit puzzled by people going into ministry who seem to think it's just a career like any other, and who are missing that spark of vocation and laying down their lives.
Finding the happy medium for the Church being "in and not of" the world is about as difficult as deciding where Jesus' humanity ends and his divinity begins (it's a favourite comparison of mine to examine churches through the lens of the various heresies about the incarnation. I know more than a few churches I'd consider to be 'docetic'...).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
