When a Manager Wants to Let an Employee Go: 8 Questions HR Should Ask First

"I think it's time we let them go."

Most HR professionals have heard some version of that sentence, usually from a manager who has been carrying frustration for weeks or months. Sometimes the manager has it right. The performance problems are documented, coaching hasn't worked, or something serious has happened that calls for a firm response.

Other times, a few questions turn up a more complicated picture. The employee was never clearly told their job was at risk, their role shifted without anyone saying so, or a health issue sits behind an attendance problem nobody has asked about.

HR's role at that moment is to make sure the decision rests on facts. That means establishing what happened, what the organization has already done, what obligations apply and which response fits. A good review protects the employee, supports the manager and leaves the business in a defensible position, whatever the outcome.

Key Takeaways

• A manager's frustration is a signal to look closer. It isn't, on its own, a reason to end employment.

• Replace labels like "bad attitude" or "not a fit" with specific, observable facts.

• Confirm that expectations were clear and the employee knew their job was at risk.

• Check how similar situations have been handled before.

• Alberta employers can't end employment because of a protected ground under the Alberta Human Rights Act, and accommodation obligations may need to be addressed first.

• Performance problems and written warnings don't automatically amount to just cause.

• Termination is sometimes the right answer. The review makes sure leadership knows why, and what obligations come with it.

  
  

1. What exactly has the employee done?

Managers often describe the problem as a conclusion: "difficult," "unreliable," "not engaged," "not a good fit." Those words reflect real frustration, but HR can't assess a label. The first step is to translate it into facts. What happened, when, and how often? What was expected instead, and what was the impact?

Compare "they have a bad attitude" with "in three team meetings this month, they interrupted colleagues and twice refused assigned tasks in front of the team." Only the second gives HR something to evaluate. The same applies to "not meeting expectations," which immediately raises questions about which targets, over what period, and whether the employee used to meet them before something changed.

2. Were expectations clear, and did the employee know there was a problem?

One question cuts through quickly: would this employee be surprised to hear their job is at risk? If the honest answer is yes, the organization has work to do before it has a decision to make.

Growing companies are especially prone to this gap. Roles expand informally and priorities shift, so an employee hired two years ago may now be doing a different job, measured against standards nobody wrote down.

Feedback deserves the same scrutiny. A manager may believe they've raised the issue five times while the employee heard five casual suggestions. "Try to stay on top of those reports" lands very differently from "You've missed the reporting deadline three times in six weeks. Meeting it is a requirement of your role, and we need to see sustained improvement."

HR should review performance reviews, warnings, emails, meeting notes, coaching records and any improvement plan, along with the employee's responses. The aim is an accurate record of what the employee was told, which is very different from assembling paperwork to support a decision already made.

3. Has the employee had a fair chance to improve?

Serious misconduct can call for a very different process. Where the issue is performance, though, the employee needs a real opportunity to correct it: a clear explanation, an achievable standard, a reasonable timeframe, appropriate training or support, and follow-up.

Picture a manager who has been unhappy for six months but avoided the conversation. They issue a written warning on Monday and tell HR on Friday that nothing has changed. For the manager, the problem is six months old. For the employee, the formal concern is four days old, and anyone reviewing the decision later will notice.

Timing can work against employers in the other direction too. When an employer knows about misconduct and lets a long period pass before acting, that delay can weaken a later claim that the conduct justified termination for cause.

4. What kind of problem is this?

Four different issues often get grouped together. A capability gap means the employee is trying but can't consistently meet the role's requirements. Misconduct involves breaking a rule, ignoring a reasonable direction or behaving inappropriately. Interpersonal conflict can exist even when performance is adequate. A role mismatch happens when someone who succeeded in the job as it used to be struggles with the job the company needs now.

Each calls for a different response. Training won't fix deliberate misconduct, discipline won't fix a poorly designed role, and replacing an employee won't resolve a working relationship issue that will resurface with the next hire.

5. Are we being consistent?

If the concern is repeated lateness, what happened when others were repeatedly late? If it's a missed procedure, has that procedure actually been enforced?

Consistency doesn't require identical outcomes, since service history, severity, prior discipline and accommodation needs legitimately vary. The organization should be able to explain why similar situations were handled differently. Suddenly enforcing a rule that has been ignored for years is worth recognizing before anyone acts on it.

6. Could human rights or accommodation obligations apply?

Under the Alberta Human Rights Act, an employer can't terminate an employee, with or without cause, because of a protected ground such as disability, pregnancy, religious beliefs or family status. Employers also have a duty to accommodate needs connected to a protected ground to the point of undue hardship.

Attendance complaints are where this comes up most. Before treating absences as a conduct issue, HR should understand what's behind them. The Alberta Human Rights Commission is clear that where disability is involved, an employer can't simply discipline or terminate based on an absence record and must consider the employee's medical information.

Employees with accommodation needs can still be held to legitimate expectations. The practical step is to ask early whether anything in the situation suggests human rights or accommodation obligations need attention before going further.

7. What else is contributing to the problem?

Performance rarely happens in isolation. Look at the conditions around the employee: shifting priorities, heavy workloads, gaps in training, responsibility without matching authority, or a recent change in role or reporting line.

It's also worth looking at the support managers themselves receive. Many are promoted for technical strength and given little preparation for difficult people conversations, so gaps in direction or feedback are common and very fixable. If several people have struggled in the same seat, the seat deserves a closer look. Ending one person's employment won't resolve a structural issue, and the same pattern tends to reappear with whoever fills the role next.

8. Is the proposed response proportionate?

Minor frustrations build for months, something happens on Tuesday, and by Wednesday the manager wants termination. The Tuesday incident may be serious enough on its own, but HR should separate the trigger from the history with two questions. If Tuesday had never happened, would we be discussing termination? And if the previous six months had been problem-free, would Tuesday alone justify this response? The answers show whether leadership is responding to the event or to frustration that was never addressed along the way.

Know Which Decision You're Making

For provincially regulated employers, Alberta's Employment Standards Code allows employment to end without cause when the employer provides termination notice, termination pay or a combination of both. Just cause is a different position. It generally requires conduct serious enough to justify ending the relationship without notice or termination pay, and the employer must be prepared to prove it. The Government of Alberta recommends seeking legal counsel before a just cause termination.

Poor performance, a written warning or a manager's frustration doesn't automatically meet that bar. Statutory minimums may also not be the full entitlement, since employees can be owed reasonable notice under common law depending on their contract and circumstances. Federally regulated employers fall under the Canada Labour Code, and rules differ in other provinces, so the analysis needs to match the jurisdiction.

A Pre-Termination Review at a Glance

Question	What HR is establishing
What specifically happened?	Facts rather than labels
Were expectations clear and communicated?	Whether the employee knew there was a problem
Was there a fair chance to improve?	Whether performance management was meaningful
What type of problem is it?	Performance, misconduct, conflict or role mismatch
How were similar situations handled?	Consistency and fairness
Could a protected ground be relevant?	Human rights and accommodation obligations
What else is contributing?	Structural or support gaps
Is the response proportionate?	Whether it fits the full picture
With or without cause?	The legal position and resulting obligations

Bring HR In Before the Decision Hardens

Termination is sometimes the right call. The facts are clear, expectations were communicated, support was provided and nothing improved, or the misconduct is serious enough that a long process makes little sense. The review exists so the decision follows the analysis. HR shouldn't build a process around a conclusion already reached, and it shouldn't block a termination that's warranted.

The best outcomes usually come from involving HR well before anyone says "let them go." That means bringing HR in when performance starts slipping, attendance becomes a concern, conflict escalates, an employee raises a health or accommodation issue, or informal coaching isn't working. Expectations can still be clarified at that stage, documentation reflects events as they happen, and employees get a genuine chance to improve.

For organizations without senior HR expertise in-house, and for internal HR teams who want experienced support on a difficult file, Stoppler Hughes provides practical guidance on employee relations, performance management and termination decisions. Learn more at stopplerhughes.com.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an employer in Alberta terminate an employee for poor performance?

Employment can end, but poor performance alone doesn't automatically establish just cause. Where cause isn't established, the employer must meet its contractual, statutory and potentially common law obligations. Legal advice is worthwhile when the right approach is unclear.

Does an employee need written warnings before being terminated?

There's no universal rule requiring a set number of warnings. The right process depends on the nature and severity of the issue and whether just cause is alleged. For performance concerns, a clear record of expectations, feedback and opportunity to improve matters.

Can an employee be terminated while receiving an accommodation?

An accommodation doesn't shield an employee from every legitimate employment decision. However, an employer can't terminate because of a protected ground, and where one is relevant it must be able to show it accommodated to the point of undue hardship.

When should an employer involve an employment lawyer?

Involve one when considering just cause, when human rights or accommodation issues may be involved, when contract termination language needs interpreting, or when potential liability is significant.