THE query whether clergy should turn into employees might be asked this yr, the Archbishop of York has said, on his first day holding the primatial functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
In an “Epiphany letter” sent on Monday to all clergy, lay ministers, and congregations within the Church of England, Archbishop Cottrell writes first of the necessity to “turn into a safer and more accountable church”.
“The events of recent weeks, particularly the publication of the Makin Review, have sometimes felt as if we have now been separated from the sunshine and hope of Christ,” he wrote. “Reading reports of abuse, cover-ups, and institutional failure, we’re confronted with a darkness that has harmed so many. To those that have been hurt, I offer my deepest apologies.”
Paying tribute to the work of parish safeguarding officers, safeguarding employees, clergy, and volunteers, he suggested that “significant progress” had been made.
“However, there continues to be more to do to ensure that us to turn into a safer and more accountable church, and for our processes to be trusted. Whether it’s my decisions which can be called into query or anyone’s inside the church, our safeguarding practices have to be subject to independent oversight and scrutiny.”
The letter goes on to say “other things to contemplate this yr. We must attend to issues around clergy well-being and do all that we will to extend the stipend level. It might also be the time to look again at clergy terms of service to extend accountability (including that of bishops) and possibly ask the query as as to if clergy should turn into employees.”
This query has already been raised in public discourse in recent weeks in reference to matters of safeguarding, clergy discipline, and the challenges of removing clergy from office. Last month, Archbishop Cottrell said that, within the case of David Tudor, who had served within the diocese of Chelmsford subject to safeguarding restrictions that prevented his being alone with a baby, and had been banned for ministry for five years in 1989 for sexual misconduct, there had been “no legal grounds to take alternative motion” until a latest arrest was made in 2019 (News, 20 December 2024).
In August, the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Revd Philip North, suggested that clergy should turn into employees of the diocesan board of finance, “with all of the transparency and mutual accountability that provides” (News, 23 August 2024). This followed the case of Canon Andrew Hindley, who was paid a six-figure sum by the diocese after difficult a move to force him to retire (News, 14 August 2024). He had been assessed as a risk to children and young people, and was the topic of 5 police investigations and a number of other suspensions. Because Canon Hindley held office under freehold, he might be removed only under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM); the BBC has reported that several attempts were made to bring a case.
“There are many misperceptions that worker status would bring negative restrictions,” Bishop North wrote in his blog in August. “As a priest who has been an worker (during which era I felt the strongest sense of support and security I even have known in three many years of ministry) I think that there are methods through which clergy can benefit from the same freedoms in ministry they’ve now whilst also having fun with the protections of worker status. An advantage of this fashion ahead is that almost all disciplinary matters could be settled through an HR process quite than through long and clumsy legal procedures.”
Office-holders (including most stipendiary and self-supporting parish clergy, and a few chaplains who do not need a contract of employment or earn a salary) make up the only largest category among the many clergy, although there are contractual elements to ministry under common tenure — the tenure on which all office-holders have been appointed since 31 January 2011.
Church House guidance on common tenure notes that “the good majority of office holders may remain in a specific post until they resign or retire”. They might be faraway from office only through discipline or capability procedures, or the operation of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011.
The guidance lists quite a few rights accrued to clergy office-holders, including the best of appeal to an employment tribunal if faraway from office on grounds of capability. But it also notes that there may be “no resort to an employment tribunal if an office-holder is dissatisfied at the top of a grievance procedure”.
Office-holder status has been subject to legal challenge in recent times. In 2023, an employment judge ruled that a former curate in training, David Green, while not an worker, was a “employee”, and that his case against Lichfield diocese might be dropped at an employment tribunal (News, 18 August 2023). In 2020, a judge considering Dr Martyn Percy’s case against Christ Church, Oxford, where he was Dean, ruled that “an office holder might be in an employment relationship with an alleged employer”, and that his case could proceed (News, 6 October 2020).
In 2015, the Court of Appeal rejected claims from Unite that beneficed clergy with freehold must be treated as employees or staff, within the case of the Revd Mark Sharpe, who resigned from his post as Rector of Teme Valley South in 2009, claiming that he was bullied by his parishioners and hounded out of office (News, 8 May 2015).
In the early 2000s, the Archbishops’ Council was “attracted” to the concept of clergy as employees, in accordance with a law professor charged with reviewing the terms under which clergy hold office. Professor David McClean told a fringe meeting at General Synod in 2006 that “higher counsels prevailed” (News, 14 July 2006).
His review group was arrange after a consultation by the Department of Trade Industry in 2002 on the employment status of “atypical staff”. The New Labour government had expressed concern that clergy lacked the employment rights provided by employment law, and noted that it had the facility, under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act (1999), to increase employment rights to the clergy.
In 2003, most (5500) clergy held freehold, greater than 1000 clergy had contracts, and the remaining 3500 — a growing number — had neither, operating as an alternative under a bishop’s licence, which might be revoked at any time, and needed to be renewed by the diocesan bishop every seven years. Parliament’s attention was drawn to the case of the Revd Ray Owen, who in 1999 began a three-year dispute with the diocese of Lichfield, after his seven-year term was not prolonged. He was supported by the trade union Amicus. The case was settled out of court in 2002, and was estimated to have cost the diocese £100,000 (News, 22 November 2002).
The McClean review group report, published in 2004, went beyond considering the employment rights of clergy without freehold or contract, to recommend replacing freehold with a common-tenure model, with clergy currently having fun with freehold given the chance to opt in. It also introduced a latest “capability procedure”, under which clergy might be removed — a move that caused considerable concern. The aim was to create “latest rights in addition to clearer responsibilities”, with an obligation to participate in ministerial development review (MDR) considered one of the outcomes.
The review proposed that every one clergy would have access to the Government’s section 23 rights within the Employment Relations Act (1999) — interpreted for the Church and approved by General Synod — including the best to break day, maternity and parental leave, an in depth pay statement, an announcement of terms and conditions of service, and the best to use to an employment tribunal in case of a breach of those rights.
The report — subject to intense debate — gave rise to the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure, which received Royal Assent in 2009. Professor McClean said in 2006 that there had been “an amazing struggle until we retained the concept of office-holders”.
Aidan Hargreaves-Smith, an authority in ecclesiastical law, warned that, moving to employment would “risk changing our understanding of the character of the priesthood” (Comment, 24 January 2003). “The Church of England maintains that the elemental basis for ordination is vocation. Moreover, an incumbent exercises a priestly ministry in a parish in response to a call from God, not due to the terms of an employment contract. The distinction goes to the very heart of priesthood.” It would “bring those called by God to serve his Church right into a modem employment culture through which the language of individual rights takes over from that of corporately understood responsibilities”
In recent years, questions on clergy terms of service have been prompted by concerns about well-being. In May, the Revd Sam Maginnis, who chairs the Church of England Clergy and Employee Advocates (CEECA), a part of Unite the Union’s Faithworkers’ Branch, warned that the status of the clergy as office-holders “must not be used to position increasing demands and expectations on clergy without offering reciprocal support structures and accountability of those making the demands” (News, 31 May 2024). CEECA has played a key part in calling for increases to clergy stipends (News, 31 May 2024).
Last yr, the General Synod asked the Archbishops’ Council, Pensions Board, and Church Commissioners, to “work along with dioceses to explore ways through which the extent of clergy pensions and stipends may be improved in a sustainable manner” (News, 1 March 2024).
Archbishop Cottrell’s Epiphany letter begins with an invite to “look to the longer term with great hopefulness in Christ” and an expression of “deep gratitude in your faithfulness”. It sets out an invite to “reflect deeply on what we expect from an Archbishop of Canterbury”.
On the matter of Living in Love and Faith, the Archbishop says that, because the Church considers the introduction of “bespoke services” for the Prayers of Love and Faith, there have to be “provision for individuals who cannot support these developments”, including “delegated episcopal ministry”. But he warns that, “for the reason that Makin Review itself warns how tribalism can endanger accountability and make oversight harder, we must not do that in a way that further breaks the Body of Christ”.
In recent weeks, the Archbishop has faced calls to resign over his handling of the case of David Tudor, during his time as Bishop of Chelmsford. His letter acknowledges that “some people have concerns”, but continues, “aware of my very own needs and shortcomings I pledge myself to learn, and I pledge myself to do what I can to steer through the change we’d like on these vital issues and to carry myself accountable, each to the processes we have now for the time being and to the brand new ones we are going to introduce.”
It concludes: “Let us commit ourselves to becoming a Church that appears and feels like Jesus: penitent, kind, and in tune with the need and purposes of God, the safer and more accountable Church I think we’re called to be.”
