Priest maintains existence of employment relationship with Catholic diocese
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an intriguing case involving a retired Catholic priest seeking legal recourse against his former diocese.
The case revolved around whether the priest was an employee of the church, and if so, whether he was unfairly dismissed when his retirement stipend was reduced.
The worker, a retired priest, claimed that he was an employee of the Catholic diocese and that the significant reduction of his monthly retirement stipend in 2023 amounted to an unlawful dismissal.
The case hinged on the nature of the relationship between the priest and the church, with the worker arguing it was one of employment, while the employer maintained it was a "covenantal and spiritual" bond.
According to records, the worker had a long history with the diocese, having been ordained as a priest in 1980. He served in various positions within and outside the diocese for approximately 33 years before retiring in 2013.
Upon his retirement, specific arrangements were made by the then-Bishop regarding his sustenance. The worker's final role before retirement was as a parish administrator from 2011 to 2013. The terms of this appointment were outlined in a "Memorandum of Understanding" between the worker and the Apostolic Administrator of the diocese.
The memorandum detailed the duration of the tenure, living arrangements, and financial provisions.
In September 2013, the Bishop wrote to the worker confirming the financial arrangements for his retirement:
"These arrangements, which commence with your retirement on 14 October 2013, are provisional and will continue until we are in a position to make more permanent arrangements.
The retirement arrangement continued until 2023, when the worker's stipend was significantly reduced, prompting him to seek legal action.
"[The worker] alleges that in 2023 in his retirement he was an employee of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes (the Trustees) and that in September 2023 he was unlawfully dismissed from his employment in contravention of the general protection provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act)," the FWC said.
The employer, on the other hand, argued that the worker was never an employee and that their relationship was "covenantal and spiritual [and] incapable of recognition as one of temporal 'employment'."
The case discussed the complex nature of relationships within religious organisations and the legal implications when such relationships break down. The FWC also highlighted the importance of clearly defined roles and expectations, particularly in the context of retirement arrangements for clergy members.
Essentially, the FWC had to determine whether the worker was indeed an employee, and if so, whether he was dismissed.
The Commission noted that the worker only had standing to make a claim if he was "a person who has been dismissed" under s.365(a) of the Fair Work Act, which applies only to employees.
The Commission examined the evidence of the worker's history with the diocese, the circumstances of his retirement, and the financial arrangements made for his sustenance. It found that there was no evidence of the worker undertaking any ministry work associated with the office of a priest in the Diocese since at least 2016.
"Relevantly, there is no evidence of [the worker] undertaking any ministry associated with the presbyterate (meaning any ministry work associated with the office of a priest) in the Diocese since at least 2016."
Furthermore, the Commission noted that there were no universal or established rules or norms in relation to support for priests who had 'retired' before reaching 75 years of age.
"There are no universal or established rules or norms in relation to support for priests who have 'retired' before reaching 75 years of age. Those situations tend to be considered on a 'case by case' basis, and will depend on the circumstances and the resources at the disposal of the relevant Diocese or that can otherwise be availed."
Ultimately, the Commission determined that the worker was not an employee of the diocese at the time of the alleged dismissal in 2023, and therefore, his claim could not succeed.
"If he was not an employee at this time, then he was not dismissed as alleged, and his general protections claim must fail."
