Changes

==== '''The lag between Census data and current workforce reality''' ====

==== '''The lag between Census data and current workforce reality''' ====

Official Workforce Availability (WFA) benchmarks are derived from national Census data, which is only collected every five years and published with significant delays. For rapidly changing demographic groups, such as members of visible minorities, these benchmarks often fail to capture the actual growth of qualified people in the current labor market.  Expanded guidance: Availability estimates can be materially outdated relative to present labour market conditions. When planning against only historical WFA, there is a risk of concluding that representation is adequate when the external labour market has evolved. In fast‑growing groups, this gap can be substantial and may misinform decisions about where reductions occur.  If the organization relies solely on this lagging data during its initial analysis, it risks a state where the department looks representative on paper even though it is falling behind real‑world market realities. This creates a situation where reductions appear to meet Employment Equity goals but actually entrench underrepresentation relative to the current talent pool. Managers must document the Census year used and the time gap between that data and the current workforce numbers to ensure the analysis is grounded in reality.  Implementation detail: Always record the specific Census year and publication date alongside the current date and any more recent labour market indicators consulted (for example, Labour Force Survey). Include a brief note on how data lag may affect interpretation to ensure clarity for reviewers.

Official Workforce Availability (WFA) benchmarks are derived from national Census data, which is only collected every five years and published with significant delays. For rapidly changing demographic groups, such as members of visible minorities, these benchmarks often fail to capture the actual growth of qualified people in the current labor market.  Expanded guidance: Availability estimates can be materially outdated relative to present labour market conditions. When planning against only historical WFA, there is a risk of concluding that representation is adequate when the external labour market has evolved. In fast‑growing groups, this gap can be substantial and may misinform decisions about where reductions occur.  If the organization relies solely on this lagging data during its initial analysis, it risks a state where the department looks representative on paper even though it is falling behind real‑world market realities. This creates a situation where reductions appear to meet Employment Equity goals but actually entrench underrepresentation relative to the current talent pool. Managers must document the Census year used and the time gap between that data and the current workforce numbers to ensure the analysis is grounded in reality.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Always record the specific Census year and publication date alongside the current date and any more recent labour market indicators consulted (for example, Labour Force Survey). Include a brief note on how data lag may affect interpretation to ensure clarity for reviewers.

==== '''Applying growth‑adjusted benchmarks for accurate modeling.''' ====

==== '''Applying growth‑adjusted benchmarks for accurate modeling.''' ====

To address the data lag, managers should not rely exclusively on the official WFA numbers for their internal planning. Instead, they should apply a more accurate threshold using the following formula: Adjusted\ Availability = Official\ WFA + (Recent\ LFS\ proportion - Census\ proportion). This incorporates the most recent Labour Force Survey (LFS) trends to find a more realistic representation threshold.  Expanded guidance: Calculating an adjusted availability aligns planning with more current labour market conditions while still acknowledging the official benchmark. The adjustment should be calculated transparently, with data sources, dates, and calculations documented and retained.  By calculating an "Attainment Ratio" (Internal\ Representation \div Adjusted\ Availability), the department can identify if a unit is at risk of creating a new representation gap. If the ratio is above 1.0 against the old Census but below 1.0 against the adjusted benchmark, the organization should document this representation risk in the Step 1 Decision Record before proceeding with any layoffs. This ensures that the department does not accidentally reduce its workforce below the actual availability of the Canadian labor market. Implementation detail: Include attainment ratios both against the official WFA and against the adjusted availability. Where ratios disagree, note the variance and the potential equity impact, and consider mitigations (for example, scope choices, assessing organizational needs, or sequencing reductions).

To address the data lag, managers should not rely exclusively on the official WFA numbers for their internal planning. Instead, they should apply a more accurate threshold using the following formula: Adjusted\ Availability = Official\ WFA + (Recent\ LFS\ proportion - Census\ proportion). This incorporates the most recent Labour Force Survey (LFS) trends to find a more realistic representation threshold.  Expanded guidance: Calculating an adjusted availability aligns planning with more current labour market conditions while still acknowledging the official benchmark. The adjustment should be calculated transparently, with data sources, dates, and calculations documented and retained.  By calculating an "Attainment Ratio" (Internal\ Representation \div Adjusted\ Availability), the department can identify if a unit is at risk of creating a new representation gap. If the ratio is above 1.0 against the old Census but below 1.0 against the adjusted benchmark, the organization should document this representation risk in the Step 1 Decision Record before proceeding with any layoffs. This ensures that the department does not accidentally reduce its workforce below the actual availability of the Canadian labor market.  

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Include attainment ratios both against the official WFA and against the adjusted availability. Where ratios disagree, note the variance and the potential equity impact, and consider mitigations (for example, scope choices, assessing organizational needs, or sequencing reductions).

==== '''Requirements based on historical access to high‑profile assignments.''' ====

==== '''Requirements based on historical access to high‑profile assignments.''' ====

When defining the Future State, there is a risk of defining required work around "prestige" assignments or high‑profile experience that has not been equally accessible to all employees. If future skills are based on factors like "acting at senior levels" or "executive briefing exposure," the process will naturally favor those who were historically given those opportunities through informal networks and sponsorshi'''p.'''  Expanded guidance: Requirements should be expressed in terms of what the job needs done, not the prestige of past opportunities. Screening for phrases that signal access rather than ability (for example, “central agency exposure”) helps avoid embedding historical privilege.  Employment Equity groups often face systemic barriers to these specific types of high‑visibility roles. To ensure fairness, every continuing function must be justified by its actual operational necessity rather than its historical prestige. Managers should replace these historical access requirements with clear, competency‑based descriptions of the tasks, ensuring that merit is based on the ability to do the work rather than having had a specific "seat at the table."  Implementation detail: For each essential qualification, include a plain description of the linked duty and the observable behaviour that evidences competence (for example, “prepares clear briefings for senior audiences” rather than “has briefed executives”).

When defining the Future State, there is a risk of defining required work around "prestige" assignments or high‑profile experience that has not been equally accessible to all employees. If future skills are based on factors like "acting at senior levels" or "executive briefing exposure," the process will naturally favor those who were historically given those opportunities through informal networks and sponsorshi'''p.'''  Expanded guidance: Requirements should be expressed in terms of what the job needs done, not the prestige of past opportunities. Screening for phrases that signal access rather than ability (for example, “central agency exposure”) helps avoid embedding historical privilege.  Employment Equity groups often face systemic barriers to these specific types of high‑visibility roles. To ensure fairness, every continuing function must be justified by its actual operational necessity rather than its historical prestige. Managers should replace these historical access requirements with clear, competency‑based descriptions of the tasks, ensuring that merit is based on the ability to do the work rather than having had a specific "seat at the table."   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' For each essential qualification, include a plain description of the linked duty and the observable behaviour that evidences competence (for example, “prepares clear briefings for senior audiences” rather than “has briefed executives”).

==== '''The concentration of diversity in urban work centers.''' ====

==== '''The concentration of diversity in urban work centers.''' ====

Restructuring often involves moving work from regional offices to urban centers. Diversity levels are not spread evenly across the country; for instance, representation for members of visible minorities is often significantly higher in major cities compared to rural regions.  Expanded guidance: Location choices materially affect representation. Consolidating to or from urban centres should be modelled for demographic impact, so decision makers can see the representation consequences of each option.  If the Future State involves closing an urban office without modeling the demographic impact, the organization may unintentionally eliminate a large portion of its diverse workforce. A "Geographic Representation Snapshot" must be completed to ensure that consolidation does not create a "diversity desert" and that the department maintains its commitment to a workforce that reflects the Canadian population it serves. Implementation detail: The snapshot should show current representation by site, projected representation after proposed changes, and differences from departmental baselines and adjusted availability. Summarize findings in the Step 1 Decision Record and note mitigation steps where risks are identified.

Restructuring often involves moving work from regional offices to urban centers. Diversity levels are not spread evenly across the country; for instance, representation for members of visible minorities is often significantly higher in major cities compared to rural regions.  Expanded guidance: Location choices materially affect representation. Consolidating to or from urban centres should be modelled for demographic impact, so decision makers can see the representation consequences of each option.  If the Future State involves closing an urban office without modeling the demographic impact, the organization may unintentionally eliminate a large portion of its diverse workforce. A "Geographic Representation Snapshot" must be completed to ensure that consolidation does not create a "diversity desert" and that the department maintains its commitment to a workforce that reflects the Canadian population it serves.  

 

'''Implementation detail:''' The snapshot should show current representation by site, projected representation after proposed changes, and differences from departmental baselines and adjusted availability. Summarize findings in the Step 1 Decision Record and note mitigation steps where risks are identified.

==== '''Linguistic requirements and the risk of rising language profiles.''' ====

==== '''Linguistic requirements and the risk of rising language profiles.''' ====

Official language requirements must be set objectively based on the actual functions of the position, as required by the Official Languages Act. There is a risk that language profiles are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a hidden tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool.  Expanded guidance: Language profiles must be justified by the nature of work, such as direct service to the public, supervision, or internal service delivery in both official languages. Any proposed profile changes should reference concrete duties that require that level.  Raising language requirements without a proven operational need acts as a structural filter that pushes out high‑performing employees who may not have been given equal access to language training. The Official Languages unit must provide written confirmation that any profile changes are justified by the work, ensuring language is used for service delivery and not as a shortcut for headcount management. Implementation detail: Attach the Official Languages written confirmation to the Step 1 file. Ensure the rationale is specific (for example, “regular, direct service to the public in both official languages at advanced complexity requires Level C reading/writing/oral”).

Official language requirements must be set objectively based on the actual functions of the position, as required by the Official Languages Act. There is a risk that language profiles are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a hidden tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool.  Expanded guidance: Language profiles must be justified by the nature of work, such as direct service to the public, supervision, or internal service delivery in both official languages. Any proposed profile changes should reference concrete duties that require that level.  Raising language requirements without a proven operational need acts as a structural filter that pushes out high‑performing employees who may not have been given equal access to language training. The Official Languages unit must provide written confirmation that any profile changes are justified by the work, ensuring language is used for service delivery and not as a shortcut for headcount management.

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Attach the Official Languages written confirmation to the Step 1 file. Ensure the rationale is specific (for example, “regular, direct service to the public in both official languages at advanced complexity requires Level C reading/writing/oral”).

==== '''Performing a prediction of future representation rates.''' ====

==== '''Performing a prediction of future representation rates.''' ====

Before any positions are eliminated, the department should perform a review to predict the representation rates of the retained group. The formula used is: Projected\ Representation = (Current\ EE\ employees - Proposed\ reductions) \div Future\ total\ positions.  Expanded guidance: This projection should be prepared for each affected unit and for the aggregate affected part. Assumptions should be stated (for example, which positions are proposed for elimination and the demographic composition of those positions).  This projection allows the organization to see the "diversity outcome" of their business decisions before they are finalized. Where the projection falls below adjusted availability or departmental baselines, the manager must document why the reduction will not deepen existing gaps. This ensures structural awareness and prevents the unintentional erosion of progress in Employment Equity.  Implementation detail: If projections fall below adjusted availability or internal baselines, record the specific risk, the business constraint, and any mitigations (for example, reconsider scope, revisit essential qualifications to ensure fidelity to duties, or set an organizational need in Step 7 where appropriate and lawful).

Before any positions are eliminated, the department should perform a review to predict the representation rates of the retained group. The formula used is: Projected\ Representation = (Current\ EE\ employees - Proposed\ reductions) \div Future\ total\ positions.  Expanded guidance: This projection should be prepared for each affected unit and for the aggregate affected part. Assumptions should be stated (for example, which positions are proposed for elimination and the demographic composition of those positions).  This projection allows the organization to see the "diversity outcome" of their business decisions before they are finalized. Where the projection falls below adjusted availability or departmental baselines, the manager must document why the reduction will not deepen existing gaps. This ensures structural awareness and prevents the unintentional erosion of progress in Employment Equity.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' If projections fall below adjusted availability or internal baselines, record the specific risk, the business constraint, and any mitigations (for example, reconsider scope, revisit essential qualifications to ensure fidelity to duties, or set an organizational need in Step 7 where appropriate and lawful).

=== STEP 2: Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization ===

=== STEP 2: Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization ===

The scope must be defined strictly by the work being reduced or discontinued, rather than the specific individuals currently performing that work. This requirement protects fairness and legality. To meet it, map functions and duties first, then map positions and incumbents to those functions.

The scope must be defined strictly by the work being reduced or discontinued, rather than the specific individuals currently performing that work. This requirement protects fairness and legality. To meet it, map functions and duties first, then map positions and incumbents to those functions.

* '''Drawing scope boundaries too tightly around diverse teams. A significant equity risk occurs when scope boundaries are drawn too tightly around a specific team that happens to be very diverse, while safe‑guarding other units that perform substantially similar work. This "unit isolation" can make a layoff look like a neutral operational decision when it is actually targeting a specific group of employees.''' Expanded guidance: To prevent “unit isolation,” conduct an objective comparison of duties across units that perform similar work, regardless of organizational labels or reporting lines.  To prevent this, the department must conduct a "Similar Work Test." This involves formally verifying if comparable duties are performed in other parts of the organization. If similar work exists elsewhere but is excluded from the adjustment scope, the manager must provide a written rationale in the Scope Determination Record explaining the business reason for the exclusion. Implementation detail: The Similar Work Test should list the core duties, the percentage of time for each duty, where those duties appear elsewhere, and a clear business reason for any exclusion (for example, work is continuing in that unit due to legislative requirement).

==== '''Drawing scope boundaries too tightly around diverse teams.''' ====

* '''The impact of geographic boundaries on regional diversity. Choosing between a local, regional, or national scope has massive consequences for fairness. For example, if a department uses a local scope for a reduction in a diverse urban center, it may result in more layoffs for racialized employees compared to using a broader national scope that includes less diverse regions.''' Expanded guidance: Select a geographic boundary that accurately reflects how work is delivered and that does not concentrate risk on a single location with a materially different demographic composition.  Managers must document why a specific geographic boundary was selected. If a national scope is used, the department must ensure that employees in all regions have consistent and equal access to information, union representation, and support services to ensure that distance does not become a barrier to procedural fairness. Implementation detail: Record the rationale for boundary selection in the Scope Determination Record and describe the measures used to provide equal access across regions (for example, simultaneous e‑mail notices, virtual town halls, bilingual Q\&A sessions).

A significant equity risk occurs when scope boundaries are drawn too tightly around a specific team that happens to be very diverse, while safe‑guarding other units that perform substantially similar work. This "unit isolation" can make a layoff look like a neutral operational decision when it is actually targeting a specific group of employees.  Expanded guidance: To prevent “unit isolation,” conduct an objective comparison of duties across units that perform similar work, regardless of organizational labels or reporting lines.  To prevent this, the department must conduct a "Similar Work Test." This involves formally verifying if comparable duties are performed in other parts of the organization. If similar work exists elsewhere but is excluded from the adjustment scope, the manager must provide a written rationale in the Scope Determination Record explaining the business reason for the exclusion.  

* '''Manipulating boundaries to avoid legal program triggers. There is a risk that scope boundaries are drawn specifically to manipulate the "counts" of affected employees to avoid legal obligations. For instance, splitting a single team into two separate units might keep the number of affected employees below the "5 or more" threshold that triggers a mandatory Voluntary Departure Program (VDP).''' Expanded guidance: The design of scope must never be used to reduce or avoid employee rights. Labour Relations and HR should review scope for integrity and confirm that counts reflect the true affected part.  Labour Relations and HR must affirm that scope decisions are not being used to circumvent the rights of employees under the Workforce Adjustment Directive. The "Scope Determination Record" should include an accurate count of all affected indeterminate employees by group and level to ensure that all negotiated protections are triggered appropriately. Implementation detail: Include the counts, data sources, and date of extraction. If a VDP threshold is met, record that fact and list the next steps to comply.

 

* '''The need for a representation check before finalizing scope. Before the scope is finalized, the HR Analytics team should produce a "Snapshot" of representation for the proposed affected area. This snapshot should be compared against the departmental baseline and the sensitivity benchmarks established in Step 1.''' Expanded guidance: The Snapshot should show representation by Employment Equity (EE) category, total counts, percentages, and comparisons to both departmental baselines and adjusted availability used in Step 1, so changes in scope can be tested for fairness effects.  If the proposed scope concentrates risk in a unit with significantly higher representation than the rest of the department, this concentration must be flagged. The manager should then review the scope to ensure that the definition of the affected part is truly based on the discontinuance of a function and not on an arbitrary boundary that produces an inequitable outcome. Implementation detail: Where concentration exists, document whether the scope can be expanded or adjusted to align to the function rather than the particular team, and record the decision and rationale.

'''Implementation detail:''' The Similar Work Test should list the core duties, the percentage of time for each duty, where those duties appear elsewhere, and a clear business reason for any exclusion (for example, work is continuing in that unit due to legislative requirement).

* '''Ensuring scope reflects the actual discontinuance of functions. Scope must be anchored in the "Future State" rationale from Step 1. If the scope includes functions that are actually continuing elsewhere in the department, the organization is vulnerable to legal challenges regarding the legitimacy of the layoff.''' Expanded guidance: Cross‑check each function included in scope against the Future State inventory of discontinued, reduced, or continuing work. Where continuing work is identified, either remove it from scope or document a valid operational reason that aligns with the Future State.  This is especially important for Employment Equity groups who may be performing specialized outreach or community‑based work. If these functions are unique, they must be defended based on their operational output rather than the incumbents' identities. The Step 2 file must include a "Work‑Based Scope Test" to prove the boundary is legitimate.  Implementation detail: The Work‑Based Scope Test should map functions to authorities, outputs, service standards, and dependencies, and should demonstrate that the scope follows the function, not the people.

 

==== '''The impact of geographic boundaries on regional diversity.''' ====

Choosing between a local, regional, or national scope has massive consequences for fairness. For example, if a department uses a local scope for a reduction in a diverse urban center, it may result in more layoffs for racialized employees compared to using a broader national scope that includes less diverse regions.  Expanded guidance: Select a geographic boundary that accurately reflects how work is delivered and that does not concentrate risk on a single location with a materially different demographic composition.  Managers must document why a specific geographic boundary was selected. If a national scope is used, the department must ensure that employees in all regions have consistent and equal access to information, union representation, and support services to ensure that distance does not become a barrier to procedural fairness.  

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Record the rationale for boundary selection in the Scope Determination Record and describe the measures used to provide equal access across regions (for example, simultaneous e‑mail notices, virtual town halls, bilingual Q\&A sessions).

 

==== '''Manipulating boundaries to avoid legal program triggers.''' ====

There is a risk that scope boundaries are drawn specifically to manipulate the "counts" of affected employees to avoid legal obligations. For instance, splitting a single team into two separate units might keep the number of affected employees below the "5 or more" threshold that triggers a mandatory Voluntary Departure Program (VDP).  Expanded guidance: The design of scope must never be used to reduce or avoid employee rights. Labour Relations and HR should review scope for integrity and confirm that counts reflect the true affected part.  Labour Relations and HR must affirm that scope decisions are not being used to circumvent the rights of employees under the Workforce Adjustment Directive. The "Scope Determination Record" should include an accurate count of all affected indeterminate employees by group and level to ensure that all negotiated protections are triggered appropriately.  

 

==== '''Implementation detail:''' Include the counts, data sources, and date of extraction. If a VDP threshold is met, record that fact and list the next steps to comply. ====

 

==== '''The need for a representation check before finalizing scope.''' ====

Before the scope is finalized, the HR Analytics team should produce a "Snapshot" of representation for the proposed affected area. This snapshot should be compared against the departmental baseline and the sensitivity benchmarks established in Step 1.  Expanded guidance: The Snapshot should show representation by Employment Equity (EE) category, total counts, percentages, and comparisons to both departmental baselines and adjusted availability used in Step 1, so changes in scope can be tested for fairness effects.  If the proposed scope concentrates risk in a unit with significantly higher representation than the rest of the department, this concentration must be flagged. The manager should then review the scope to ensure that the definition of the affected part is truly based on the discontinuance of a function and not on an arbitrary boundary that produces an inequitable outcome.  

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Where concentration exists, document whether the scope can be expanded or adjusted to align to the function rather than the particular team, and record the decision and rationale.

 

==== '''Ensuring scope reflects the actual discontinuance of functions.''' ====

Scope must be anchored in the "Future State" rationale from Step 1. If the scope includes functions that are actually continuing elsewhere in the department, the organization is vulnerable to legal challenges regarding the legitimacy of the layoff.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Cross‑check each function included in scope against the Future State inventory of discontinued, reduced, or continuing work. Where continuing work is identified, either remove it from scope or document a valid operational reason that aligns with the Future State.  This is especially important for Employment Equity groups who may be performing specialized outreach or community‑based work. If these functions are unique, they must be defended based on their operational output rather than the incumbents' identities. The Step 2 file must include a "Work‑Based Scope Test" to prove the boundary is legitimate.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' The Work‑Based Scope Test should map functions to authorities, outputs, service standards, and dependencies, and should demonstrate that the scope follows the function, not the people.

=== STEP 3: Identify the Positions and the Affected Employees ===

=== STEP 3: Identify the Positions and the Affected Employees ===

This step moves from the abstract "affected part" to a specific list of position numbers and the names of the indeterminate employees who occupy them. This makes the SERLO process concrete and ensures that all substantive incumbents of in‑scope positions are identified.

This step moves from the abstract "affected part" to a specific list of position numbers and the names of the indeterminate employees who occupy them. This makes the SERLO process concrete and ensures that all substantive incumbents of in‑scope positions are identified.

This creates the "SERLO Pool"—the group of employees who will be compared against each other for retention based on merit. The pool must be built from HR system data, validated for accuracy, and accompanied by the records described below to ensure inclusion, fairness, and integrity.

This creates the "SERLO Pool" - the group of employees who will be compared against each other for retention based on merit. The pool must be built from HR system data, validated for accuracy, and accompanied by the records described below to ensure inclusion, fairness, and integrity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Record the audit date, source system, corrections made, and who validated them.

==== '''Using core tasks rather than job titles to group employees.''' ====

Managers often group employees based solely on their job titles, but titles can be misleading. Two people with the same title might do completely different work, or people with different titles might perform substantially similar duties. Grouping by title alone can unfairly isolate diverse employees into "pools of one" where they have no chance to compete for retention.

* '''Using core tasks rather than job titles to group employees. Managers often group employees based solely on their job titles, but titles can be misleading. Two people with the same title might do completely different work, or people with different titles might perform substantially similar duties. Grouping by title alone can unfairly isolate diverse employees into "pools of one" where they have no chance to compete for retention.''' Expanded guidance: Create a Duty Similarity Matrix listing top duties and time allocation for each position. Where roles share approximately 80% or more of core duties, pool them together regardless of title.  To ensure fairness, the department should use a "Duty Similarity Matrix" to compare actual core tasks across positions. If employees are performing 80% or more of the same duties, they should be in the same pool regardless of their title.  Implementation detail: Keep the matrix with the SERLO file and reference it in the pool formation note.

 

* '''Addressing the clustering of groups in specific job levels. Employment Equity groups may be concentrated in certain job levels or "streams" due to historical hiring patterns. If grouping is inconsistent across units, this clustering can lead to a disproportionate impact on those groups.''' Expanded guidance: After pools are formed, calculate basic representation for each pool and compare to Step 1 projections. This check is for awareness and fairness, not for quotas.  For each pool identified, managers should calculate representation rates and compare them to Step 1 projections. This does not mean quotas are used; it means that the manager is aware of the demographic makeup of the pool and can ensure the process is free from "structural sorting" that targets specific levels where diversity is highest.  Implementation detail: Where disproportionate impact appears tied to grouping choices, review whether pooling by duty similarity can be improved.

'''Expanded guidance:''' Create a Duty Similarity Matrix listing top duties and time allocation for each position. Where roles share approximately 80% or more of core duties, pool them together regardless of title.  To ensure fairness, the department should use a "Duty Similarity Matrix" to compare actual core tasks across positions. If employees are performing 80% or more of the same duties, they should be in the same pool regardless of their title.   

* '''Data validation to ensure accurate language and location records. Incorrect data regarding an employee's language profile or geographic location can result in them being placed in the wrong pool or excluded improperly. This is a critical risk for employees in regional offices or those whose language profiles were recently updated.''' Expanded guidance: Complete a Position Data Audit to verify tenure, location, and language for each person in the pool, correcting the source system where needed.  A "Position Data Audit" must be completed by HR Systems and Classification to verify the tenure, language, and location of every employee in the pool. Documentation of this audit must be preserved in the SERLO file to prove that the pool was constructed with high data integrity.  Implementation detail: Note the specific corrections made, with dates, and retain a signed audit confirmation.

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Keep the matrix with the SERLO file and reference it in the pool formation note.

 

==== '''Addressing the clustering of groups in specific job levels.''' ====

Employment Equity groups may be concentrated in certain job levels or "streams" due to historical hiring patterns. If grouping is inconsistent across units, this clustering can lead to a disproportionate impact on those groups.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' After pools are formed, calculate basic representation for each pool and compare to Step 1 projections. This check is for awareness and fairness, not for quotas.  For each pool identified, managers should calculate representation rates and compare them to Step 1 projections. This does not mean quotas are used; it means that the manager is aware of the demographic makeup of the pool and can ensure the process is free from "structural sorting" that targets specific levels where diversity is highest.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Where disproportionate impact appears tied to grouping choices, review whether pooling by duty similarity can be improved.

 

==== '''Data validation to ensure accurate language and location records.''' ====

Incorrect data regarding an employee's language profile or geographic location can result in them being placed in the wrong pool or excluded improperly. This is a critical risk for employees in regional offices or those whose language profiles were recently updated.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Complete a Position Data Audit to verify tenure, location, and language for each person in the pool, correcting the source system where needed.  A "Position Data Audit" must be completed by HR Systems and Classification to verify the tenure, language, and location of every employee in the pool. Documentation of this audit must be preserved in the SERLO file to prove that the pool was constructed with high data integrity.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Note the specific corrections made, with dates, and retain a signed audit confirmation.

== Phase II: Notifications and Preliminary Structural Activities ==

== Phase II: Notifications and Preliminary Structural Activities ==

The organization must inform the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), the unions (bargaining agents), and the affected employees that a workforce adjustment is underway. This is not a layoff notice; it is an organizational announcement intended to ensure transparency before any assessments begin. The package should clearly explain the purpose of the notice, the steps to come, the supports available, and points of contact in both official languages.

The organization must inform the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), the unions (bargaining agents), and the affected employees that a workforce adjustment is underway. This is not a layoff notice; it is an organizational announcement intended to ensure transparency before any assessments begin. The package should clearly explain the purpose of the notice, the steps to come, the supports available, and points of contact in both official languages.

* '''The requirement for simultaneous notification to all employees. Information is power during a workforce adjustment. If some employees hear the news earlier than others, they have more time to consult their unions or prepare for the stress of the process. This is especially true for Employment Equity groups who may have smaller informal professional networks.''' Expanded guidance: Use a Single Release Protocol to send all notices at the same time. Include confirmed delivery to employees on leave so no one is disadvantaged by timing.  The organization should use a "Single Release Protocol" where all notices are sent at the exact same moment. For employees on leave, notices should be sent via confirmed delivery to ensure that no one is left behind while their colleagues are beginning to make career‑defining decisions.  Implementation detail: Record the date and time of issuance, recipient lists, and confirmation records.

'''The requirement for simultaneous notification to all employees.'''

* '''Ensuring communication materials are accessible by design. Many government announcements are sent as PDFs or emails that may not be screen‑reader compatible or available in alternate formats like large print. Under the Accessible Canada Act, the department has a legal obligation to ensure that SERLO communications are accessible to all.''' Expanded guidance: Prepare communications in accessible formats (for example, accessible Word or HTML) with plain language, clear headings, and simple navigation. Offer alternate formats upon request.  The Accessibility function should review the notification package before it is released. This includes ensuring that the instructions for requesting help or seeking union advice are clear, unambiguous, and easy to find for everyone, regardless of their physical or cognitive abilities.  Implementation detail: Include contact information for accessibility, unions, HR, and mental‑health supports in both official languages.

 

Information is power during a workforce adjustment. If some employees hear the news earlier than others, they have more time to consult their unions or prepare for the stress of the process. This is especially true for Employment Equity groups who may have smaller informal professional networks.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Use a Single Release Protocol to send all notices at the same time. Include confirmed delivery to employees on leave so no one is disadvantaged by timing.  The organization should use a "Single Release Protocol" where all notices are sent at the exact same moment. For employees on leave, notices should be sent via confirmed delivery to ensure that no one is left behind while their colleagues are beginning to make career‑defining decisions.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Record the date and time of issuance, recipient lists, and confirmation records.

 

==== '''Ensuring communication materials are accessible by design.''' ====

Many government announcements are sent as PDFs or emails that may not be screen‑reader compatible or available in alternate formats like large print. Under the Accessible Canada Act, the department has a legal obligation to ensure that SERLO communications are accessible to all.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Prepare communications in accessible formats (for example, accessible Word or HTML) with plain language, clear headings, and simple navigation. Offer alternate formats upon request.  The Accessibility function should review the notification package before it is released. This includes ensuring that the instructions for requesting help or seeking union advice are clear, unambiguous, and easy to find for everyone, regardless of their physical or cognitive abilities.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Include contact information for accessibility, unions, HR, and mental‑health supports in both official languages.

=== STEP 5: Conduct Required Classification and Staffing Activities ===

=== STEP 5: Conduct Required Classification and Staffing Activities ===

This step ensures that all job descriptions and language profiles are accurate and up‑to‑date. If the work has changed as part of the restructuring, the permanent (substantive) positions must be re‑evaluated to reflect the current duties before any assessment of employees occurs. This prevents employees from being measured against outdated or prestige‑based criteria and ensures assessments are aligned with actual work.

This step ensures that all job descriptions and language profiles are accurate and up‑to‑date. If the work has changed as part of the restructuring, the permanent (substantive) positions must be re‑evaluated to reflect the current duties before any assessment of employees occurs. This prevents employees from being measured against outdated or prestige‑based criteria and ensures assessments are aligned with actual work.

* '''Removing requirements based on historical prestige. Inequity is often hidden in the "fine print" of job descriptions. Requirements like "experience briefing senior executives" or "central agency exposure" are often markers of past privilege rather than actual technical skills. These markers reflect who has had access to high‑profile projects in the past.''' Expanded guidance: Replace prestige markers with competency‑based statements tied to duties and observable behaviours, expressed in plain language.  Employment Equity groups have historically faced more barriers to these types of high‑visibility opportunities. To ensure a fair pool, the department should screen descriptions to replace these historical access markers with competency‑based language, such as "Ability to communicate complex data to senior decision‑makers."  Implementation detail: Verify that each essential qualification maps to a specific Future State duty and the method that will assess it.

'''Removing requirements based on historical prestige.'''

* '''Protecting language objectivity from being used to manage numbers. There is a risk that language requirements are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool. Raising requirements without an operational need acts as a structural barrier that unfairly targets certain groups.''' Expanded guidance: Ensure that any change to a language profile is supported by a written operational justification from Official Languages.  The Official Languages unit must provide a written justification proving that the language level is an absolute requirement for the work in the Future State. This ensures that language profiles are used to support service and not as a tool for workforce reduction.  Implementation detail: Attach this justification to the Step 5 record and ensure consistency with Step 1.

 

Inequity is often hidden in the "fine print" of job descriptions. Requirements like "experience briefing senior executives" or "central agency exposure" are often markers of past privilege rather than actual technical skills. These markers reflect who has had access to high‑profile projects in the past.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Replace prestige markers with competency‑based statements tied to duties and observable behaviours, expressed in plain language.  Employment Equity groups have historically faced more barriers to these types of high‑visibility opportunities. To ensure a fair pool, the department should screen descriptions to replace these historical access markers with competency‑based language, such as "Ability to communicate complex data to senior decision‑makers."   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Verify that each essential qualification maps to a specific Future State duty and the method that will assess it.

 

==== Protecting language objectivity from being used to manage numbers. ====

There is a risk that language requirements are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool. Raising requirements without an operational need acts as a structural barrier that unfairly targets certain groups.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Ensure that any change to a language profile is supported by a written operational justification from Official Languages.  The Official Languages unit must provide a written justification proving that the language level is an absolute requirement for the work in the Future State. This ensures that language profiles are used to support service and not as a tool for workforce reduction.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Attach this justification to the Step 5 record and ensure consistency with Step 1.

=== STEP 6: Establish a Voluntary Departure Program (VDP), Where Required ===

=== STEP 6: Establish a Voluntary Departure Program (VDP), Where Required ===

A VDP must be offered if five or more indeterminate employees at the same group and level in the same unit are affected and no job offer is guaranteed. It allows employees to choose to leave with a package before any involuntary layoffs are decided. Program parameters should be communicated clearly, with timelines, eligibility, benefits, and points of contact.

A VDP must be offered if five or more indeterminate employees at the same group and level in the same unit are affected and no job offer is guaranteed. It allows employees to choose to leave with a package before any involuntary layoffs are decided. Program parameters should be communicated clearly, with timelines, eligibility, benefits, and points of contact.

* '''Ensuring the program remains truly voluntary and free of pressure. A major risk at this stage is that managers might "hint" to certain employees that they should take the package because they are "unlikely to be retained" in the upcoming assessment. This informal signaling is unethical and undermines the voluntariness of the program.''' Expanded guidance: Issue a written directive prohibiting discussions about an individual’s likelihood of retention during the VDP window, and provide a channel for employees to report concerns confidentially.  Management must issue a written directive prohibiting any discussions about an individual's likelihood of retention during the VDP window. This ensures that every employee’s decision to stay or leave is based on their own personal circumstances, rather than a perceived threat.  Implementation detail: Retain the directive with the VDP file and remind managers in writing.

==== '''Ensuring the program remains truly voluntary and free of pressure.''' ====

* '''Analyzing patterns of departure to identify potential bias concerns. Diverse employees may choose to leave the public service at higher rates during a VDP if they fear the upcoming SERLO assessment will be biased against them. If high numbers of a specific group volunteer to leave, it may be a sign of a lack of trust in the fairness of the department's processes.''' Expanded guidance: Monitor uptake patterns at an aggregate level and investigate drivers of disproportionate participation.  The HR Analytics and Employment Equity units should monitor "uptake patterns" by demographic group. If a specific group is volunteering disproportionately, the department should investigate the drivers behind these departures to ensure the remaining process is viewed as fair.  Implementation detail: Where patterns are observed, consider additional communication, Q\&A sessions, or process clarifications to build trust.

A major risk at this stage is that managers might "hint" to certain employees that they should take the package because they are "unlikely to be retained" in the upcoming assessment. This informal signaling is unethical and undermines the voluntariness of the program.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Issue a written directive prohibiting discussions about an individual’s likelihood of retention during the VDP window, and provide a channel for employees to report concerns confidentially.  Management must issue a written directive prohibiting any discussions about an individual's likelihood of retention during the VDP window. This ensures that every employee’s decision to stay or leave is based on their own personal circumstances, rather than a perceived threat.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Retain the directive with the VDP file and remind managers in writing.

 

==== '''Analyzing patterns of departure to identify potential bias concerns.''' ====

Diverse employees may choose to leave the public service at higher rates during a VDP if they fear the upcoming SERLO assessment will be biased against them. If high numbers of a specific group volunteer to leave, it may be a sign of a lack of trust in the fairness of the department's processes.

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Monitor uptake patterns at an aggregate level and investigate drivers of disproportionate participation.  The HR Analytics and Employment Equity units should monitor "uptake patterns" by demographic group. If a specific group is volunteering disproportionately, the department should investigate the drivers behind these departures to ensure the remaining process is viewed as fair.   

 

'''Implementation detail:''' Where patterns are observed, consider additional communication, Q\&A sessions, or process clarifications to build trust.

== Phase III: Assessment Design and Legal Safeguards ==

== Phase III: Assessment Design and Legal Safeguards ==