Important: The GCConnex decommission will not affect GCCollab or GCWiki. Thank you and happy collaborating!

Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Detailed Equity Considerations for SERLO / Considérations détaillées en matière d’équité pour le SERLO (view source)

Revision as of 17:37, 16 February 2026

11,542 bytes added ,  16 February
no edit summary
Line 119: Line 119:  
== '''10. Structural Importance of Step 1''' ==
 
== '''10. Structural Importance of Step 1''' ==
 
Every subsequent step of SERLO depends on the decisions made in Step 1. How continuing work is defined, how many positions are retained, and what skills are considered essential—all of these decisions shape the SERLO process. If Step 1 relies on outdated availability measures or lacks sensitivity modelling, the process may comply with procedural requirements while entrenching structural inequities.
 
Every subsequent step of SERLO depends on the decisions made in Step 1. How continuing work is defined, how many positions are retained, and what skills are considered essential—all of these decisions shape the SERLO process. If Step 1 relies on outdated availability measures or lacks sensitivity modelling, the process may comply with procedural requirements while entrenching structural inequities.
 +
 +
 +
Understood — you want to '''keep the exact structure, headings, and bullets''', but '''add clarifying sentences so each bullet becomes a complete, readable idea''', just like the Step 1 rewrite I did earlier.
 +
 +
Here is '''STEP 2 rewritten in the same style''', with '''all original bullets preserved''', but '''each one expanded into full, clear sentences'''. Nothing has been removed or altered for meaning.
 +
----
 +
 +
= '''STEP 2 — Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization''' =
 +
 +
=== ''(Bullets preserved, rewritten into clear sentences with headings)'' ===
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''Legislative and Policy Basis''' ==
 +
 +
=== '''Why this step exists''' ===
 +
Under '''PSEA s.64(1)''', employees may be laid off when their services are no longer required due to a lack of work, the discontinuance of a function, or the transfer of work. This establishes the legal authority for identifying areas of the organization where work is ending or significantly changing.
 +
 +
Under '''PSEA s.64(2)''', when only some employees in any part of the organization may be laid off, the employer must apply the SERLO process as outlined in the '''Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER)'''. This requirement ensures fairness, consistency, and transparency for all employees who may be affected.
 +
 +
The '''PSC Guide (Step 2)''' further requires delegated managers, supported by HR specialists, to first determine the affected part(s) of the organization and to document specific scope elements. This ensures the SERLO begins with a clearly defined and defensible boundary.
 +
 +
Additionally, '''WFAD obligations''' depend on the number of affected employees in the same group and level within the same work unit. Because voluntary departure programs and other WFA supports are triggered by these counts, Step 2 directly shapes which obligations apply.
 +
 +
=== '''Official Guidance (Primary Reference)''' ===
 +
The authoritative reference for this step is the Public Service Commission’s guide, ''Selection of employees for retention or lay-off: Guide for managers and human resources specialists (Step 2)'', which provides the operational requirements for determining affected organizational parts.
 +
----
 +
 +
= '''1. What This Step Is''' =
 +
 +
== '''1.1 Purpose of Step 2''' ==
 +
Step 2 formally defines the ''“affected part(s) of the organization”'' for the workforce adjustment and for any subsequent SERLO. Doing so establishes the scope boundary that determines fairness, comparability, and consistency for all employees included in the SERLO. The scope also determines how WFAD obligations apply and ensures the same rules and supports are applied equally to all employees in the affected area.
 +
 +
== '''1.2 What the Scope Determines''' ==
 +
The scope identifies which organizational units—such as work units, sections, divisions, or directorates—are affected. It also clarifies whether the impacted area is local, regional, or national in nature. Finally, the scope identifies which programs or types of work fall within the identified area. These decisions directly determine which positions and employees will later be included in the SERLO pool.
 +
 +
== '''1.3 PSC Requirements for Step 2''' ==
 +
The PSC Guide requires delegated managers, with HR support, to identify the specific sections, divisions, or directorates that make up the affected part(s). They must also identify the applicable geographic area—local, regional, or national—and must specify the program(s) or type(s) of work performed in each affected part. These requirements ensure the scope reflects the work itself rather than the individuals occupying positions.
 +
 +
== '''1.4 Why This Step Matters for Equity''' ==
 +
The decisions made in Step 2 determine who is placed at risk. When scope is defined too narrowly, inconsistently, or around incumbents rather than the work performed, it may create avoidable inequity and may disproportionately affect Employment Equity groups. For this reason, Step 2 is one of the most sensitive SERLO steps from an equity perspective.
 +
----
 +
 +
= '''2. Who Completes This Step''' =
 +
 +
== '''2.1 Accountable Decision-Maker''' ==
 +
The delegated manager, acting under delegated staffing authority, is responsible for making the final determination of the affected part(s) of the organization.
 +
 +
== '''2.2 Required Organizational Support''' ==
 +
A designated HR specialist—typically with expertise in workforce adjustment, staffing, classification, and documentation—must support the delegated manager in validating and recording the scope.
 +
 +
== '''2.3 Mandatory Equity and Compliance Engagement''' ==
 +
Several functional areas must be engaged to ensure the resulting record is complete and defensible. These include Employment Equity or IDEAA/Anti‑Racism, HR Analytics, Accessibility and Duty‑to‑Accommodate specialists, Official Languages advisors, Labour Relations, Corporate Planning or Finance, and Classification. Each function contributes evidence, risk assessments, or compliance validations needed to confirm that the scope is fair and legally sound.
 +
----
 +
 +
= '''3. Mandatory Outputs and Documentation''' =
 +
A '''Step 2 Scope Determination Record''' must be created and preserved in the SERLO file. It must be sufficiently clear that an independent reviewer can understand the rationale and logic behind the defined scope.
 +
 +
== '''A. Scope Definition (PSC Minimum Requirements)''' ==
 +
 +
=== '''1. Organizational Unit Definition''' ===
 +
The record must identify the affected organizational units, including the specific sections, divisions, or directorates involved. This step ensures clarity about which work functions fall under the SERLO.
 +
 +
=== '''2. Geographic Boundary''' ===
 +
The record must state whether the affected scope is local, regional, or national. This clarifies whether the same type of work is performed in multiple geographic areas and ensures boundaries are not defined arbitrarily.
 +
 +
=== '''3. Work Boundary''' ===
 +
The record must specify the programs or types of work performed in each affected part. This helps establish a work‑based rationale rather than a person‑based boundary.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''B. Scope Rationale (Required for Equity and Defensibility)''' ==
 +
The rationale must explain why the selected scope accurately reflects the work being reduced, discontinued, or transferred. It must also explain why the scope is neither broader nor narrower than necessary. The record must document whether similar work exists in other organizational units and why such work is included or excluded, as required by the PSC. Finally, the rationale must show alignment with decisions documented in the Step 1 Future State Record.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''C. Scope Map and Position Linkage''' ==
 +
The record must include or reference the current organizational chart, the future‑state organizational chart, and a list of the included work units (for example, “Software Development” or “Client Services”). For each unit, the record should provide a short description of the type of work conducted.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''D. Equity Impact Summary (Mandatory Step 2 Control)''' ==
 +
An equity analysis must accompany the scope determination. This analysis includes a representation snapshot for the proposed scope and comparisons to the departmental baseline, the official WFA benchmark, and the Step 1 sensitivity benchmark. The record must also indicate whether the scope concentrates risk in units where EE group representation is significantly higher.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''E. Scope Change Control''' ==
 +
If the defined scope changes at any later stage, the file must document what changed, why it changed, who approved the change, how employees and bargaining agents were informed, and the results of an updated equity impact assessment. This ensures transparency and prevents scope manipulation.
 +
----
 +
 +
= '''4. What Can Go Wrong at Step 2 (Equity Risks)''' =
 +
'''Risk 1 — Scope Defined Around Incumbents Rather Than Work'''
 +
 +
For example, if the affected part is defined as a single team with higher EE representation while similar work exists elsewhere, the result may be inequitable.
 +
 +
'''Risk 2 — Inconsistent Scope Across Similar Work'''
 +
 +
If two units perform the same duties but only one is included, employees may experience unequal treatment, leading to challenges.
 +
 +
'''Risk 3 — Geographic Boundary Creates Adverse Impact'''
 +
 +
Defining a local scope when the work is performed nationally may disproportionately affect Indigenous employees, visible minorities, or persons with disabilities.
 +
 +
'''Risk 4 — Scope Definition Manipulates WFAD Triggers'''
 +
 +
Scope can be misdrawn to avoid voluntary departure program requirements or to limit employee access to WFAD supports.
 +
 +
'''Risk 5 — Outdated WFA Distorts Scope Decisions'''
 +
 +
Using outdated availability benchmarks can inaccurately suggest overrepresentation and justify a narrower scope.
 +
----
 +
 +
= '''5. Mitigations (Specific, Operational, Auditable)''' =
 +
 +
== '''Mitigation Package 1 — Work-Based Scope Test (Mandatory)''' ==
 +
'''Owner:''' HR Specialist (process), Delegated Manager (accountable), Classification (support)
 +
 +
The record must include a clear statement linking the scope to the work performed, the evidence supporting that linkage (such as business plans or approved reorganization documents), and a documented check confirming whether similar work exists elsewhere. The auditor must be able to confirm the scope is based on work—not on employees.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''Mitigation Package 2 — Scope Equity Impact Assessment (Mandatory)''' ==
 +
'''Owner:''' HR Analytics + Employment Equity
 +
 +
The analysis must include a representation snapshot, a scope concentration test, and the application of Step 1 WFA sensitivity rules. The record must include the results, a plain‑language risk statement, and a statement regarding any mitigation decisions.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''Mitigation Package 3 — Geographic Boundary Fairness Controls''' ==
 +
'''Owner:''' HR Specialist + Employment Equity + Accessibility
 +
 +
Documentation must explain why a broader boundary is not appropriate, show regional representation distributions, describe any forecasted barriers related to communication or accommodation, and outline how consistent access to information will be ensured across locations.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''Mitigation Package 4 — WFAD Trigger Awareness and Consistency''' ==
 +
'''Owner:''' Labour Relations + HR WFA Advisor
 +
 +
The record must include the number of affected employees by group and level, a statement indicating whether a voluntary departure program may be required, and a confirmation that scope boundaries were not selected to avoid WFAD obligations.
 +
----
 +
 +
== '''Mitigation Package 5 — Approval and Governance Sign-Off''' ==
 +
'''Owner:''' Delegated Manager
 +
 +
Written confirmation from HR, Employment Equity, Accessibility, and Labour Relations must be collected to demonstrate that the scope meets PSC requirements, aligns with Step 1, and has undergone appropriate review.
 +
----
 +
 +
= '''6. Minimum “Done” Criteria Before Proceeding to Step 3''' =
 +
Step 2 is complete only when the SERLO file includes a full Scope Determination Record covering organizational units, geography, and work boundaries; a written rationale linked to Step 1; verification of whether similar work exists elsewhere; a representation snapshot and concentration analysis; consideration of WFA currency and sensitivity benchmarks; WFAD trigger analysis; and all necessary sign‑offs.
 +
 +
If any of these components are missing, Step 3 begins with a structurally weak foundation, elevating risks related to procedural fairness and equity impacts.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.gccollab.ca/Special:MobileDiff/144159"

Navigation menu

GCwiki