Case Study Sunday: The Gap Between “Can” and “Should”

A big part of HR work is managing the gap between what an organization can do and what it believes it should do.

And sometimes, that gap frustrates everyone involved.

This week’s case study came from a manager in Washington state dealing with a new union employee still in their introductory period. According to the manager, the employee had repeated attendance issues, concerns around falsifying documents, ongoing coaching conversations, and what they described as dishonest behavior. The union contract stated that introductory employees could be terminated without cause and without access to the grievance process.

From the manager’s perspective, the situation seemed straightforward. The contract appeared to allow termination, the employee was only six weeks in, and the manager felt there was already a clear pattern of problems.

But HR insisted on additional process before termination, including investigation meetings and a written warning.

The manager’s question was essentially:
“What am I missing?”

And honestly? This is one of those situations where both sides are probably seeing something real.

At-Will Employment Does Not Mean “No Risk”

One of the most common misunderstandings in employment conversations is the idea that “at-will” means employers never need to think carefully about process or documentation.

“At-will” means an employer can terminate employment absent a contract saying otherwise. It does not mean every termination is low-risk, every termination is wise, or that documentation and process suddenly stop mattering.

That distinction is important.

Because organizations are rarely thinking only about whether they technically can terminate someone. They are also thinking about consistency, precedent, documentation, labor relations, discrimination concerns, retaliation allegations, and how decisions may be interpreted later if challenged.

That is often the space HR is operating in.

And that broader lens can feel incredibly frustrating to managers who are dealing with immediate operational problems in front of them.

Union Contracts Are About More Than One Sentence

The manager focused heavily on this line in the union contract:

introductory employees may be terminated without cause, without notice and cannot file grievances

And to be fair, that language does matter.

But union environments rarely operate solely on one isolated sentence in a contract. They also operate through past practice, consistency across departments, labor-management relationships, and how policies have historically been enforced over time.

Even if an employee cannot personally file a grievance, organizations may still think carefully about whether the union itself could challenge something procedurally, whether standards are being applied consistently, and how similar situations have been handled before.

Because once a process becomes normalized in one situation, it often becomes harder to explain why it was not followed in another.

That is part of why precedent matters so much in HR and labor relations work.

“Show Me the Law” Is Not Always the Point

One of the most interesting parts of this case study was the manager repeatedly asking HR to produce the law or case requiring a written warning before termination.

And there may not be a law requiring one.

But that does not necessarily mean HR’s position is irrational.

A lot of HR decision-making is shaped less by:

“We are legally required to do this.”

…and more by:

“This creates a more defensible and consistent process if something is challenged later.”

Sometimes that guidance comes from prior organizational experiences. Sometimes it comes from outside counsel, insurers, arbitration outcomes, or internal precedent. Sometimes it is simply organizational philosophy around risk management.

That distinction matters because many workplace decisions are not driven purely by legal minimums.

They are driven by attempts to reduce future organizational risk.

The Real Tension Here

What makes this case study interesting is that it is not really about whether the manager is wrong or whether HR is wrong.

It is about the tension between operational frustration and organizational risk management.

The manager is looking at a six-week employee with repeated concerns and asking:

“Why are we making this harder than it needs to be?”

HR may be looking at the exact same situation and asking:

“What precedent are we setting if we skip process here?”

Both perspectives are understandable.

And honestly, this is one of the clearest examples of why employment systems become more complicated than people expect from the outside.

Organizations are rarely making decisions based only on what they can do in a single moment. They are also thinking about what happens next time, how future cases may be compared to this one, and whether the organization can defend its process consistently when the facts are less clear-cut.

That is often where the real conflict lives.