Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Loui  Vangelder

Urban Plant Life

Representatives

Pat Dunne

Jack Lundy

Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00074063-001

05/08/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

I informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is potential for a serious and/or direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate and in order that matters might progress. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 5th of August 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

The Complainant was fully represented. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth.

In advance of the hearing, I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case.

The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:  

I am complaining against the conduct of my employer Sam Smyth who over a number of weeks publicly humiliated me and without verbal or written warnings fired me in front of staff and customers. I also worked as a General Maintenance Operator and trained in new staff, following this I was then taken off the contract. There was no explanation and the verbal abuse I received in front of staff and customers in the weeks building up to and on the 19th July 2025 when I was fired and walked off the premises was humiliating and without provocation.

The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he was Unfairly dismissed.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent was represented by Peninsula Business Services Ireland.

The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received to the WRC on the 13th of August 2026. The Respondent was further represented by a witness Mr Sam Smyth the owner of the Garden centre.

No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witnesses were cross examined by the Complainant representative

The Respondent denies that there has been an Unfair Dismissal.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced during the course of this hearing. At the outset, it was not entirely clear whether this was a claim of constructive dismissal or a dismissal arising from alleged misconduct. In the circumstances, I indicated that I would hear all of the evidence before determining how and in what circumstances the employment relationship came to an end.

The Complainant held a part-time position with the Respondent, Urban Plant Life, working on Saturdays. The Respondent operates a city-centre garden centre, offering a unique shopping experience in an historic setting, with knowledgeable staff available to assist customers in selecting suitable plants and gardening products.

As the Complainant was studying horticulture, this role represented an excellent opportunity to gain relevant practical experience. As I understand it, the Complainant was participating in a Work Placement Experience Programme, which enabled him to retain his social welfare payment while receiving an additional top-up in the course of gaining work experience. The Complainant worked seven hours each Saturday and earned €105.00 per day from his Employer.

Generally speaking, the employment relationship appears to have progressed satisfactorily. SS (the Manager/Owner) gave evidence that Saturdays were particularly busy and that he expected the Complainant to remain active on the premises, tending to plants, keeping things orderly, assisting customers and responding to queries as they arose.

I accept that the Complainant hoped to secure full-time employment with the Respondent in the future, although I am satisfied that no firm commitment had been given in that regard. The Complainant appeared to understand that obtaining a driving licence would improve his suitability for any future full-time role within the business.

The evidence disclosed two prior incidents which caused tension between the parties. The first occurred when SS became aware that the Complainant had provided either his own telephone number, or that of a friend, to a customer who required painting work to be carried out. SS considered this inappropriate. The second incident involved the Complainant accepting a tip of €10.00 from a customer. The Complainant gave evidence that SS reacted angrily and instructed him never again to accept money, allegedly telling him that, if he was unhappy, he could "**** off now". I am unable to make a definitive finding that those words were used; however, I accept SS's own evidence that he was displeased by the acceptance of the tip.

Both incidents took place during the course of employment. SS appears to have formed the view that the Complainant was becoming overly familiar with customers, may have been soliciting business opportunities, and was not maintaining sufficient focus on the broader needs of the business. It does not appear that these concerns were directly communicated to the Complainant. Instead, SS became increasingly watchful of him. Relations between the parties deteriorated during June and July of 2025. SS stated in evidence that he believed the Complainant was unhappy about having been reprimanded.

On Saturday, 19 July 2025, the Complainant attended work as normal. At some point during the day, SS instructed him to remove rubbish that had accumulated near the entrance to the premises. The Complainant did not carry out this task immediately, being occupied with his normal duties of maintaining the premises, caring for plants and assisting customers. There is no suggestion that the Complainant was avoiding this work/task. I accept that he became occupied with other tasks and either forgot about the rubbish or intended to deal with it later.

It is important to note that the rubbish in question consisted of paper and/or cardboard type detritus. While it might have been untidy and unsightly, per the evidence it did not present any obvious health or safety risk.

Later that day, SS approached the Complainant and expressed dissatisfaction that his earlier instruction had not been followed. On balance, I am inclined to accept that SS's approach was unnecessarily heavy-handed and authoritative, conveying an expectation of unquestioning compliance.

The Complainant, who was dealing with a customer at the time, appears to have responded in a similar manner. The exchange quickly became confrontational.

In his evidence, SS accepted that he accused the Complainant of "insubordination" during the course of the disagreement and that he directed the Complainant to "leave" and to "go". SS stated that this response from him arose because he felt the Complainant had become aggressive and was "in his face". The Complainant denied behaving aggressively and maintained that he was expressly told by his Employer -SS- that he was "fired".

SS denied using the word "fired". However, when questioned, he accepted that directing an employee to leave the workplace could reasonably be interpreted by that employee as a dismissal.

Thereafter, both parties proceeded to the office, where the Complainant gathered his belongings and signed out. I do not regard the signing-out process as inconsistent with the proposition that the Complainant believed he had just been dismissed. It seems more likely that he wished to ensure he would be paid for the hours he had worked that day.

Both parties confirmed that SS followed behind the Complainant as he left the premises. The Complainant never returned to the workplace.

Later that evening, the Complainant sent an email requesting that the CCTV footage from that afternoon be preserved. In that email he asserted that he had been humiliated in front of staff and customers, had been instructed to leave the premises immediately and had been dismissed at approximately 4.45 p.m.

The Complainant asks me to draw an adverse inference from the Respondent's failure to produce the relevant CCTV footage. On balance, I find the explanations offered for the non-production of the footage to be unsatisfactory and unsupported by evidence. I am therefore inclined to conclude that the footage would not have been particularly favourable to the Respondent's version of events. More specifically, I suspect it may have demonstrated that both parties were contributing to the confrontation and that neither party conducted themselves particularly well or with much dignity during the exchange.

In the days following the incident, there was further email correspondence between the parties. I note that SS's emails did not directly address the argument which had occurred. This is somewhat inconsistent with his oral evidence that he had been fearful of and felt threatened by the Complainant during the interaction.

It is significant that SS continued to assert that he regarded the Complainant to be an employee and, albeit somewhat indirectly, sought to offer an opportunity for reconciliation. In his email of 24 July 2025, he stated:

"I'm writing you to once again confirm that you very much are an employee of Plant Life. And as such, I expect you to resume work upon returning from your annual leave on 2nd August. I would also like to confirm that there are no sanctions or warnings on your file to date."

Despite this conciliatory communication, the Complainant had no intention of returning to the workplace. On balance, I accept that the altercation between the parties had caused a rupture in the employment relationship which could not realistically be repaired. Having heard the evidence of both parties, it was apparent that the trust and confidence necessary for the continuation of the employment relationship no longer existed. Even though a cooling off period gave rise to an attempt to sort things out, the damage was done.

Ultimately, I find that the Complainant was summarily dismissed during the course of a heated argument with his employer. I am satisfied that SS initiated the confrontation. However, I do not accept that the Complainant was entirely blameless. I accept the evidence that he challenged SS during the exchange and thereby contributed to the escalation of the situation.

In assessing compensation, I have taken into account the Complainant's contribution to the events which resulted in the termination of the employment relationship. I have also taken account of the fact that his role with the Respondent formed part of a placement scheme and was not a permanent position.

In addition, I note that the Complainant has since moved towards self-employment as a horticulturalist. I am not satisfied that he has made sufficient efforts to mitigate his loss arising from the termination of this employment, which generated earnings of €105.00 per week.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00074063-001  -  The Complainant was unfairly dismissed and I award €1,000.00 compensation.