Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Son (17 yrs old) received investigation letter for gross misconduct

203 replies

JustV · 10/12/2025 22:30

My son has started working at the end of October 2025. He was really happy, exited and really liked his job. However, be was suspended today (after he finished his shift) and was given letter for investigation meeting, gross misconduct.
Allegations are: abuse or failure to follow any of the company's policies or procedures also insubordination and failure to obey instructions or perform work as required or defined. Only 2 incidents mentioned. No evidence provided. He cooked 8 meats instead of 6 and 4 pattys instead of 2. I can't see this as gross misconduct. It wasn't mentioned what specific policy/ procedure he breached. It was second time he was cooking pattys. No previous worning given. I find this to harsh. He is new in a very quick phased job, he follows instructions and listens to his mangers and if this happened it was genuine mistake. How we should approach this? His wasn't properly trained, no clear communication (one manager says this another something else), no warning given, he needs to work quickly and sometimes he hasn't got enough time to think.

OP posts:
Imlyingandthatsthetruth · 11/12/2025 20:00

Well, you've got (and you're giving us) his side of the story, and of course you are going to support him, but when you say he hasn't been rude or disrespectful, are you sure about that? McDs is, I imagine, a pretty stressful place to work, which may explain (but not excuse) bullying managers, but it also means that there's likely to be high turnover, and if staff start being arseholes "rude and disrespectful" they probably won't muck about tring to retain people.

So yeah, best way forward may well be to walk away, but at the same time a reminder to a seventeen year old that your mouth can get you onto trouble very quickly may not go amiss.

TheBroonOneAndTheWhiteOne · 11/12/2025 20:02

Whereismyfleeceblanket · 11/12/2025 19:39

Maccies by any chance? Ds was in a very similar situation.. A colleague gave him a drink that had been paid for but not collected... Fabrications were made regarding the situation.. The manager sacked him and gave his job to her gf's dd..
A week after another manager suggested he go for promotion such were his manners and attitude to the job..
He was 20. Left him very deflated..

If you'd RTFT you'd know that it was!

Whatsthatsheila · 11/12/2025 20:02

JustV · 11/12/2025 09:56

Thank you. He naively believes he will be fine after meeting 🙂and will be able working there.

Nah if you think manager doesn’t like him he’s trying to push him out.

pretty mean doing that to a young lad trying his best. I think he’s probably best chalking this one up to experience but if it’s a chain or or there’s a higher up manager I’d probably send a message saying direct manager is failing to train staff and then kicking them out - just because I would

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

TheSquareMile · 11/12/2025 20:07

OP, I was just thinking about this more broadly and was wondering whether you think that he might be more suited to a different kind of job.

Based on how he did at school and how he spent his time outside school, what kind of job would you imagine would be the perfect fit for him?

I have a feeling that it might not be his current one.

PetuniaT · 11/12/2025 20:13

It seems that many posters think it must be your son tat is to blame. Call me cynical though but he's 17, only started in October, still in his probation period and what he's accused of (that you've told us) is hardly Gross Insubordination. What else has happened recently? Oh yes - Starmer has announced that employers who take on young NEETS will now be exempt from Employer's NI in a bid to get more youngsters into work. Maybe your boy's employer is looking to get rid of him so he can be replaced by a new start who won't cost the employer NI. Just as Reeves's increase in Employer NI - but not the employees - cost jobs, it's another insidious Labour gimmick which backfires

SeriousFaffing · 11/12/2025 20:16

Why was he cooking the extra meat/patties? I was a witness a very long time ago for a fellow employee when they were sacked on the spot for handing out food to their mates. It’s theft. Was he cooking it to eat himself?

If it’s the sort of job I’m thinking of, only the amount of food that’s required is cooked. Any food that isn’t is thrown away after being sat for too long. It cannot be eaten, it has to be thrown away.

Edited To add, it appears that you have answered the above, OP. But if they have sacked him for gross misconduct then it’s highly likely that they have something on camera.

TheOriginalCrazyLady · 11/12/2025 20:23

As an Ex-McDonalds manager - if he's cooking the incorrect number of patties, that's a "food safety issue" the grills aren't calibrated to cook more than 6 beef patties (10:1 size - cheeseburger & Big Mac patties, or 4 in 4:1 size - Quater pounder patties)
(this changed approx 16 months ago, prior to that they were) and the manager on shift in charge of food safety would have needed to ensure (on the first cook run) that the grill is cooking each patty correctly to achieve the minimum internal temperature. This is for all products.
If they start cooking more than the previously temp-checked run size. They need to re-check the first run of the increased run size. For example: if they declared that the max run size would be 4, they would need to check 4. They are now cooking 6 per run, then they would need to check the first run of 6.
I would imagine the gross misconduct is because if there was an incident of food poisoning and EHO or similar investigated and discovered that they were exceeding the declared number of patties per run then they would be in a lot of bother about it.

Morecoombe · 11/12/2025 20:27

Kimura · 11/12/2025 19:32

You cannot 'just bin' someone for gross misconduct. Gross misconduct means they won't pay his notice period.

If they do this and his actions didn't actually meet the threshold for gross misconduct, this falls under Wrongful Dismissal, which does not require two years service, and he could sue for breach of contract.

This! He should speak to ACAS first thing in morning.

Justnevergetsthere · 11/12/2025 20:33

The person accusing your son cannot also be the investigating officer, they have to be impartial. If this happens and they try to sack him he can appeal for failure to follow correct disciplinary procedures.

Friendlygingercat · 11/12/2025 20:42

Agree with previous posters who said that this was way too heavy handed if these are the facts. The manager could simply have told him that he has made too many mistakes and they are going to have to let him go. No need for all the gross misconduct drama which usually means something serious like theft. Sweeping the entire sad incident under the rug and off his cv seems like a wise move.

Climbingrosexx · 11/12/2025 20:44

He could do with having a witness in there but he also must have the details of what he is being accused of. He has a right to prepare his case and no way should they be bringing him into a meeting and not telling him exactly why he is there beforehand.

rwalker · 11/12/2025 20:46

TheOriginalCrazyLady · 11/12/2025 20:23

As an Ex-McDonalds manager - if he's cooking the incorrect number of patties, that's a "food safety issue" the grills aren't calibrated to cook more than 6 beef patties (10:1 size - cheeseburger & Big Mac patties, or 4 in 4:1 size - Quater pounder patties)
(this changed approx 16 months ago, prior to that they were) and the manager on shift in charge of food safety would have needed to ensure (on the first cook run) that the grill is cooking each patty correctly to achieve the minimum internal temperature. This is for all products.
If they start cooking more than the previously temp-checked run size. They need to re-check the first run of the increased run size. For example: if they declared that the max run size would be 4, they would need to check 4. They are now cooking 6 per run, then they would need to check the first run of 6.
I would imagine the gross misconduct is because if there was an incident of food poisoning and EHO or similar investigated and discovered that they were exceeding the declared number of patties per run then they would be in a lot of bother about it.

Brilliant explanation so the reality is it’s a serious breach

Beautyfadesdumbisforever · 11/12/2025 20:48

I think I now know why there are nearly 1 million NEETs.
in your first job you were expected to make mistakes, that’s how people learn.
If this is the pressure young people are under no wonder they are not keen on joining the work force.
I wish your son well.

SpoonBaloon · 11/12/2025 20:51

I used to work in a pub chain. Think Brexit and cheap pints. Let’s call it “Forks”.

There was a woman who worked there who was an absolute horror. She was abusive to almost all staff and even customers. There were occasions where she was physically abusive to customers. She truly was a bully. She spoke to me in ways I have never been spoken to by anyone else, ever. Years later, she is still the most hateful individual I have ever had the displeasure to encounter.

She was a shift leader and was about to become shift manager before her long-overdue semi-downfall. We only got rid of her because our new pub manager flat out refused to work with her (having met her only once before and despising her) so she was moved to another pub.

She was barred from the premises so had to leave immediately at the end of her shift. She was caught having sex in the toilets with a married manager from another pub (whose wife was also an employee and was eight months pregnant). She threw a glass of red wine over a customer. Both male and female staff had quit on the spot and walked out because of how she spoke to them. She reduced some lovely people to tears. And she would spend her shift trying to shag any man who walked through the door.

Customers of all shapes and sizes hated her - be they young lads, adult women or older couples. Some regular customers would come in and walk straight out if they saw she was working. Mystery shoppers would give her overly negative feedback which we would sometimes appeal. And almost all the staff but the pub manager hated her, to such an extent that a meeting was called after nearly all of us had separately asked to not be put on shift with her, and we were all told to “stop complaining about Laura and be nice to her”. To be fair she was a completely different person in front of this manager, but the point remains. She also managed to get rid of a few people she didn’t like.

Politics and standards in these sorts of places are so low they’re in hell. The absolute wrong people are promoted and they are held up against everyone else. These places are full of people who left school at 16 and still behave like teenagers in the playground when they’re in their mid-twenties. These jobs are often a baptism of fire.

Talltreesbythelake · 11/12/2025 20:52

rwalker · 11/12/2025 20:46

Brilliant explanation so the reality is it’s a serious breach

Well, it's a serious breach of training. If this manager can educate us on this thread in a few sentences, how has this young man been allowed to cook food for the general public without being signed off as competent?

CaptainMyCaptain · 11/12/2025 20:56

PetuniaT · 11/12/2025 20:13

It seems that many posters think it must be your son tat is to blame. Call me cynical though but he's 17, only started in October, still in his probation period and what he's accused of (that you've told us) is hardly Gross Insubordination. What else has happened recently? Oh yes - Starmer has announced that employers who take on young NEETS will now be exempt from Employer's NI in a bid to get more youngsters into work. Maybe your boy's employer is looking to get rid of him so he can be replaced by a new start who won't cost the employer NI. Just as Reeves's increase in Employer NI - but not the employees - cost jobs, it's another insidious Labour gimmick which backfires

🙄

TheOriginalCrazyLady · 11/12/2025 21:02

Talltreesbythelake · 11/12/2025 20:52

Well, it's a serious breach of training. If this manager can educate us on this thread in a few sentences, how has this young man been allowed to cook food for the general public without being signed off as competent?

Sadly, the reality is probably that the training has been inconsistent. OPs DS has probably had one training shift on grills before being rotated to a different station (I think plant patties were mentioned?)
This has potentially lead to him being "signed off" as receiving training when he hasn't spent the necessary duration accompanied by a crew trainer.

Tryingatleast · 11/12/2025 21:03

Thank you. He naively believes he will be fine after meeting 🙂and will be able working there.

op I work in a supermarket- people have been fired for taking a fizzy drink can and paying for it after they drank it, others gone through disciplinary meetings for similar and back to work after. It all depends on what happened and how sorry he is, how he speaks to them etc. Not defending himself he’s automatically throwing his job away.Hope it works out for him. Best of luck and tell him onwards and upwards if it doesn’t work out, we’ve all had bings not work out.

rwalker · 11/12/2025 21:10

Talltreesbythelake · 11/12/2025 20:52

Well, it's a serious breach of training. If this manager can educate us on this thread in a few sentences, how has this young man been allowed to cook food for the general public without being signed off as competent?

but it obviously was picked up on for it to lead to this so does sound like he was being supervised

we can only guess but when you train someone initially it does take time to get upto speed
but that said if it was a complex process you got wrong then I think you’d get more guidance and coaching
how many to put in isn’t complex it’s a basic there are some things you should only need to be told once

JustV · 11/12/2025 21:14

TheOriginalCrazyLady · 11/12/2025 20:23

As an Ex-McDonalds manager - if he's cooking the incorrect number of patties, that's a "food safety issue" the grills aren't calibrated to cook more than 6 beef patties (10:1 size - cheeseburger & Big Mac patties, or 4 in 4:1 size - Quater pounder patties)
(this changed approx 16 months ago, prior to that they were) and the manager on shift in charge of food safety would have needed to ensure (on the first cook run) that the grill is cooking each patty correctly to achieve the minimum internal temperature. This is for all products.
If they start cooking more than the previously temp-checked run size. They need to re-check the first run of the increased run size. For example: if they declared that the max run size would be 4, they would need to check 4. They are now cooking 6 per run, then they would need to check the first run of 6.
I would imagine the gross misconduct is because if there was an incident of food poisoning and EHO or similar investigated and discovered that they were exceeding the declared number of patties per run then they would be in a lot of bother about it.

Thank you, it explains a lot.

OP posts:
JustV · 11/12/2025 21:19

Thank you everyone again for all advises.
🌺🌺🌺

OP posts:
Ireolu · 11/12/2025 21:28

TheOriginalCrazyLady · 11/12/2025 20:23

As an Ex-McDonalds manager - if he's cooking the incorrect number of patties, that's a "food safety issue" the grills aren't calibrated to cook more than 6 beef patties (10:1 size - cheeseburger & Big Mac patties, or 4 in 4:1 size - Quater pounder patties)
(this changed approx 16 months ago, prior to that they were) and the manager on shift in charge of food safety would have needed to ensure (on the first cook run) that the grill is cooking each patty correctly to achieve the minimum internal temperature. This is for all products.
If they start cooking more than the previously temp-checked run size. They need to re-check the first run of the increased run size. For example: if they declared that the max run size would be 4, they would need to check 4. They are now cooking 6 per run, then they would need to check the first run of 6.
I would imagine the gross misconduct is because if there was an incident of food poisoning and EHO or similar investigated and discovered that they were exceeding the declared number of patties per run then they would be in a lot of bother about it.

Thanks for the inside information. It makes a bit more sense why he got the letter. It's clearly a training issue if he had no idea.

Doris86 · 11/12/2025 21:47

JustV · 11/12/2025 09:23

No he didn't stole anything or ate additional patties :) it was his second time on this task and he didn't know many he needs to cook. He is in a job for about 6 weeks, working part time. Expectations wasn't clearly communicated and not enough training gives. He really like there, but I don't think manager likes him for whatever reason.(my personal opinion). But gross misconduct is a bit over the top

His manager doesn’t like him? Well there is your answer. His manager has taken a dislike to him and is basically looking for excuses to get rid of him.

There seems little point in fighting this, decision has already been made. Best thing your son can do is look for a new job now.

Greenpeanutsnail · 11/12/2025 21:55

I agree with those who say he should resign and find something else. Based on what you’ve said, it sounds like his face doesn’t fit. I doubt the meeting will go in his favour and will likely further crush his confidence.

TheSquareMile · 11/12/2025 22:03

I've realised that he works part-time, OP.

Is this to fit in with his hours at school/college?