Detailed Equity Considerations for SERLO / Considérations détaillées en matière d’équité pour le SERLO

This evergreen guide was developed using various Workforce Availability (WFA) references and Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off (SERLO) guides from across the public service. It was drafted with the support of AI to improve clarity, consistency, and plain‑language readability, and it was reviewed and validated by employee network members to check for accuracy, accessibility, and equity considerations. The result is a practical resource that reflects current policy practices while centering fairness, transparency, and representativeness throughout all 14 SERLO steps.

Workforce adjustment is a formal situation that occurs when a deputy head decides that the services of one or more permanent (indeterminate) employees will no longer be required beyond a specific date. This statement establishes the legal and organizational trigger for workforce adjustment and underscores that the decision relates to indeterminate employees and a defined date after which their services are no longer required. It calls for early planning, rigorous documentation, and consistent communication because employee rights, notice periods, and entitlements depend on that date.

This usually happens because of a lack of work, the discontinuance of a specific function, or an organizational restructuring that changes how a department delivers its mandate. This sentence identifies the common operational reasons that lead to workforce adjustment and makes clear that the cause must be tied to work—either its absence, its discontinuance, or its reconfiguration—rather than to individuals. Each reason should be supported by objective evidence (for example, workload data, changed priorities, or a new delivery model) to ensure decisions are defensible.

Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off (SERLO) is a structured methodology governed by the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). It is the core decision‑making method used during workforce adjustment and that it is anchored in statute, which requires adherence to legal standards, clear criteria, and procedural fairness at each stage.

Unlike a standard hiring process that seeks to identify the "best" candidate for a new role, a SERLO is designed to differentiate between qualified employees who already hold their substantive (permanent) positions. This highlights the key difference between competitive staffing and SERLO: rather than searching for a new external or internal hire, SERLO compares current indeterminate employees who already possess qualifications and experience, and it does so within the affected scope.

The goal is to determine, on the basis of merit, which employees will be retained to carry on the continuing work and which will be laid off, ensuring that these high‑stakes decisions are made with the highest degree of fairness, transparency, and representativeness. This clarifies the objective and the standard: merit is paramount; decisions must be evidence‑based; and outcomes must maintain transparency and support a representative public service. All documentation should therefore show how merit was assessed, how transparency was maintained, and how representativeness was safeguarded within the law.

Phase I: Strategic Planning and Scope Identification

STEP 1: Determine the Desired Current and Future State of the Organization

In this foundational step, the Deputy Head establishes the operational basis for the workforce adjustment. This statement sets accountability for Step 1 and underscores that the entire SERLO process depends on a sound, well‑documented operational foundation, approved at the appropriate level of authority and aligned to mandate and program authorities.

The organization must determine what work will continue, what work will cease or be reduced, and the number of permanent positions required to perform the continuing work. This directs a complete inventory and decision on functions, volume, and capacity, supported by current and projected workloads, service standards, and legal or policy obligations. The number of indeterminate positions must be tied to continuing functions to ensure a clean and defensible mapping between work and required staffing.

This "Future State" definition includes identifying the specific knowledge, skills, experience, and official language requirements that will be necessary. This means the Future State must contain a clear list of essential qualifications tied to duties (knowledge, skills, experience) and a clear statement of official language profiles justified by the nature of work (service to the public, supervision, internal services), so later assessments directly reflect real operational requirements.

This step is functionally the most important because any error or bias in how the future work is defined will flow through the entire 14‑step process and cannot be fully corrected later. This requires heightened diligence now: use current evidence, apply equity and accessibility checks, and verify language requirements, because downstream stages (scope, pool formation, assessment, and selection) rely on the quality of Step 1.

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.

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).

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 sponsorship.

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.

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 material under‑representation risk. 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.

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.

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 defines the "scope boundary"—the specific organizational unit (section, division, or directorate) and the geographic area (local, regional, or national) where the workforce adjustment will occur. This clarifies that both organizational and geographic dimensions must be set and that they determine who is considered “in scope” for the SERLO pool.

These boundaries are the most important factor in determining who is placed "at risk" and who is kept "safe." This underscores the effect of scope on people. Therefore, the rationale must be explicit, consistent, and based on work, not individuals.

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).

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

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.

The risk of excluding employees on various types of leave.

Systemic bias often occurs when employees on parental leave, medical leave, disability leave, or Indigenous cultural leave are accidentally left off the pool list. Under the law, these employees must be included if they substantively own a position in the affected unit, even if they are not currently at their desks.

Expanded guidance: Build and maintain an Inclusion Log for employees on leave, verify contact details, and ensure equal access to notices, timelines, and accommodations. A separate "Inclusion Log" must be maintained to track these individuals. The department must ensure they receive all notifications and have the same opportunity to participate in assessments as their active colleagues. Failing to include them is a major procedural error and violates the employer's duty to respect human rights.

Implementation detail: Use confirmed delivery for notifications to employees on leave; provide accessible channels for questions; and record accommodations promptly and confidentially.

Differentiating between substantive status and acting roles.

A common error in pool identification is treating "acting" employees (those temporarily filling a higher role) as permanent members of that higher‑level unit. Conversely, your own permanent employee who is acting elsewhere still "owns" their seat in your pool and must be included in the assessment for retention.

Expanded guidance: Run a substantive status audit against HR systems. Ensure the pool contains only substantive incumbents of in‑scope positions and includes substantive incumbents who are temporarily away. Managers must perform an audit with HR systems to ensure every person in the pool is there on a "substantive" basis. Including acting employees in the wrong pool or excluding permanent employees who are away on assignment leads to unfair comparisons and successful staffing complaints under the PSEA.

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.

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.

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

STEP 4: Notify TBS OCHRO, Bargaining Agents, and Employees

Step 4 is the formal notification phase. This clarifies that all parties must be advised that workforce adjustment activities are underway, prior to assessments.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

STEP 7: Determine the Qualifications, Requirements, and Organizational Needs

Step 7 sets the "Merit Criteria"—the list of skills, knowledge, and needs that will be used to decide who stays. These factors form the legal basis for all assessments and retention decisions under the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER). Criteria must be directly tied to duties and expressed in clear, objective terms.

The use of clear and objective criteria to prevent bias.

Criteria like "leadership potential" or "cultural fit" are highly subjective and allow personal bias to influence the results. To ensure a fair process, every qualification must be directly linked to a specific duty in the "Future State."

Expanded guidance: Create a Criteria Justification Table that lists each essential and asset qualification, the duty it supports, and the observable evidence that shows it is met. Remove vague or subjective terms. The department should use a "Criteria Justification Table" to record the rationale for every factor. If a manager cannot prove that a skill is required for a daily task, it should be removed. This ensures the test measures actual merit and competence rather than a manager's personal preference.

Implementation detail: Align criteria with Step 5 job descriptions and planned Step 8 assessment methods.

Legally establishing diversity as an organizational need.

Under the PSER, "belonging to an equity group" can be established as a formal "Organizational Need" if a representation gap was identified in the Step 1 analysis. This is a legitimate tool to ensure that workforce adjustment does not wipe out years of progress in diversity.

Expanded guidance: Where Step 1 analysis shows a gap, define an organizational need with a data‑based rationale and clear rules for consistent application among candidates who meet essentials. Using diversity as an organizational need must be supported by data and documented in the criteria record. This ensures that the department meets its statutory obligations under the Employment Equity Act while remaining transparent about how these needs will be factored into the final retention decisions.

Implementation detail: Document the need, the supporting data and dates, and the application method in the Step 7 record.

STEP 8: Determine the Assessment Methods

This step decides how employees will be measured (for example, an interview, a written exam, or a work sample). This plan must be fully designed and approved before any testing activity begins to ensure consistency. The plan should list methods, weights, cut‑scores, rubrics, and accommodations pathways.

Using a single, consistent assessment plan for the whole pool.

For a SERLO to be fair, every employee in the pool must be graded using the exact same methods and tools. You cannot give one person an interview and another person a written test.

Expanded guidance: Establish a single Master Assessment Plan and apply it to everyone in the pool without exception. Mid‑process changes are not permitted unless there is a documented, lawful reason that applies to the entire pool. Managers must stick to one "Master Assessment Plan" for the entire pool. Any changes made to the methods midway through the process can be seen as "engineering" the results for a specific individual and will likely lead to successful staffing complaints.

Implementation detail: Approve the plan before use; record version control; and communicate it consistently to assessors.

The requirement for assessor training and calibration sessions.

If multiple people are grading the assessments, there is a risk of "evaluator drift," where one manager is a "tough grader" and another is "easy." This creates an unfair advantage.

Expanded guidance: Conduct training and calibration to agree on what different score levels look like, using sample responses and scoring anchors. The department must hold calibration sessions before grading starts. Graders should review the scoring rubrics together and agree on what a "good" answer looks like. This ensures that every employee is graded against a single departmental standard, rather than an individual assessor's opinion.

Implementation detail: Keep calibration notes and examples, and run spot checks on inter‑rater consistency.

STEP 9: Identify, Remove or Mitigate Biases and Barriers

Under PSER s.22(5), managers are legally required to evaluate their assessment methods and how they will be applied to identify and remove barriers that disadvantage Employment Equity groups. This must be done before the assessments occur. A written record should be prepared for each method.

Proactively searching for barriers in specific test methods.

Managers often try to satisfy this legal rule with a generic statement like "we checked for bias and found none." This is insufficient. The law requires a specific, method‑by‑method analysis.

Expanded guidance: For each assessment, list potential barriers and the mitigation (for example, extra time, accessible formats, plain‑language instructions, equivalent oral or written alternatives). For example, a timed written exam can be a barrier for an employee with a learning disability or an employee whose first language is not the test language. The "Bias and Barrier Evaluation Record" must document each identified risk and the specific action taken to fix it (such as providing extra time or alternate formats).

Implementation detail: Publish the accommodation request process and timelines in the Step 10 letters and confirm approved measures in writing.

STEP 10: Inform Employees in Writing

Every employee in the SERLO pool must receive a formal letter listing the qualifications being tested, the methods that will be used, and how to request help (accommodation) through the process. Letters should be accessible, bilingual, and free of jargon.

The "no surprises" principle in notifying employees.

A major equity gap occurs when employees are graded on "hidden" expectations that were not listed in the notification letter.

Expanded guidance: Letters must mirror Step 7 criteria and Step 8 methods exactly. No additions or changes are permitted after notice is issued, unless applied to all and re‑communicated. The letter must match the Step 7 criteria exactly, and no informal additions are permitted. Furthermore, employees must be given a reasonable "preparation window" so that those with family responsibilities or accessibility needs have the same opportunity to succeed as everyone else.

Implementation detail: Include clear contacts for accommodations and union support, specify timelines, and retain delivery confirmations.

Phase IV: Assessment Implementation and Selection

STEP 11: Assess Employees Against the Established Factors

This is the actual "testing" phase where scores are recorded based on the plan from Step 8. Results must be documented in evidence‑based records for every person in the pool. The assessment environment should be consistent, accessible, and free from avoidable distractions.

Using independent scoring to prevent dominant opinions.

To avoid the "Halo Effect"—where one influential assessor’s opinion sways the entire panel—each grader must write their scores down privately before they talk as a group.

Expanded guidance: Preserve original, independent scores for each assessor and each criterion, then hold a panel discussion to reconcile differences if needed. These initial scores must be kept in the file. If a score is changed after the group discussion, the manager must write down a clear factual reason for the adjustment. This protects against a dominant personality on the panel from unfairly favoring or disadvantaging certain employees.

Implementation detail: Use a simple “score‑change rationale” note that cites specific evidence from the assessment.

The requirement for evidence‑based factual notes.

Notes should focus on what the employee specifically said or did during the test, rather than the manager's subjective impressions. Managers should avoid using terms like "seemed weak" or "not a team player."

Expanded guidance: Notes should cite observable facts mapped to the rubric (for example, number of examples, accuracy, completeness, clarity). Instead, notes should read: "Employee provided three examples of managing budgets" or "Employee correctly identified the risk in Scenario A." This makes the process objective and ensures that decisions can be defended with facts.

Implementation detail: Store notes with the scoring sheets and ensure legibility and completeness.

STEP 12: Select Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off

The delegated manager reviews all assessment results and applies the selection rules. This is the formal decision point governed by PSER s.22(8). The selection matrix should show essentials met, total scores, and the application of organizational needs where applicable.

Preference for maintaining representation levels through organizational needs.

Unlike standard tie‑breakers, the selection stage is used to ensure that the workforce remains representative. If an organizational need for Employment Equity was established in Step 7, the manager must apply this preference to retain members of those groups to prevent the adjustment from deepening underrepresentation.

Expanded guidance: Apply organizational needs only among employees who met all essential qualifications and do so consistently across the pool. Document the application clearly. This mechanism is a primary tool for meeting the department's obligations under the Employment Equity Act. The file must show that this preference was applied consistently across the pool to protect the diversity gains of the organization during the restructuring.

Implementation detail: Include a clear column in the selection matrix indicating where an organizational need applied and the rationale.

Ensuring the baseline of essential qualifications is met.

Merit is the first principle of the SERLO. Employees who do not meet even one "Essential Qualification" - including official language proficiency—cannot be retained under the law.

Expanded guidance: Verify essentials before any organizational need is considered. If an essential is not met, the individual cannot be retained through the SERLO outcome. The manager must verify that every person selected for retention has successfully demonstrated all essential factors. Applying equity preferences can only happen among employees who have met this fundamental merit baseline, ensuring a competent and diverse continuing workforce.

Implementation detail: Keep evidence of essential‑qualification verification with the selection record.

STEP 13: Provide Written Notice of Lay‑Off or Retention

Formal letters are issued to all participants. Lay‑off notices must legally contain five specific elements: the statement of lay‑off, the legal reason, the specific selection reason, the effective date, and the right to complain. Retention letters should confirm continuation in the position and any next steps.

Transparency through the 5‑point mandatory notice content.

Vague reasons in a layoff letter, such as "other candidates were stronger overall," are not legally sufficient. The employee has a right to know exactly which qualification or organizational need led to their selection for layoff.

Expanded guidance: Provide clear, evidence‑linked reasons tied to the criteria and selection logic. Use plain language and offer contacts for questions and supports. Providing clear, evidence‑linked reasons ensures that employees know they were treated fairly and helps them decide whether they have grounds for a complaint under the PSEA. This step is critical for maintaining employee trust during a highly stressful transition.

Implementation detail: Retain delivery confirmations and offer meetings with HR/Labour Relations/union representatives on request.

STEP 14: Record the Reasons for Selection or Lay‑Off

The process closes with the creation of the final institutional record for every single employee in the pool. This record explains exactly why each person was kept or let go. It should be complete, consistent, and organized for review.

Ensuring the decision path is traceable for external review.

An external reviewer should be able to pick up the file and trace every step from the "Future State" in Step 1 to the final layoff in Step 13 without having to guess at the manager's intent. Expanded guidance: The Individual Reasons Record must cite the relevant documents from Steps 1 through 13, link to assessment evidence and scores, and show the selection logic applied. The "Individual Reasons Record" must map each decision directly to the assessment scores and the selection logic. This "paper trail" is the department's primary defense against claims of bias and ensures the organization remains accountable for its treatment of employees.

Implementation detail: Use a file completeness checklist and conduct a peer review of a sample of files for consistency.

Consolidated execution checklist

• Step 1: Document Future State, data vintage, adjusted availability, attainment ratios, geographic snapshot, language justifications, and projected representation; record risks and mitigations.
• Step 2: Define scope by discontinued/reduced work; run Similar Work Test; document geographic rationale; confirm trigger integrity with Labour Relations; complete representation snapshot; run Work‑Based Scope Test.
• Step 3: Form the SERLO pool from HR systems; maintain an Inclusion Log; build a Duty Similarity Matrix; complete a Position Data Audit; verify representation awareness in pools.
• Step 4: Prepare and issue accessible, bilingual notifications using a Single Release Protocol; confirm delivery to employees on leave; include clear contacts for unions, HR, accessibility, and supports.
• Step 5: Update job descriptions and Statements of Merit Criteria; remove prestige markers; confirm Official Languages profiles in writing; align essentials with duties.
• Step 6: If required, establish a VDP; issue a no‑pressure directive; monitor uptake patterns; investigate and address any disproportionate participation.
• Step 7: Finalize merit criteria and any organizational needs with a Criteria Justification Table; remove subjective terms; obtain delegated approvals.
• Step 8: Approve a single Master Assessment Plan; train and calibrate assessors; maintain rubrics, anchors, and inter‑rater checks.
• Step 9: Complete a Bias and Barrier Evaluation for each method; implement mitigations; publish accommodation process; confirm measures in writing.
• Step 10: Send letters that mirror approved criteria and methods; provide reasonable preparation windows; include accommodation and union contacts; retain delivery confirmations.
• Step 11: Administer assessments; capture independent scores before discussion; keep evidence‑based notes; record any score‑change rationales.
• Step 12: Build a selection matrix; confirm all essentials are met; apply organizational needs consistently among those who met essentials; record decisions.
• Step 13: Issue lay‑off and retention letters; ensure five mandatory elements in lay‑off letters; provide evidence‑linked reasons; offer explanatory meetings on request; confirm delivery.
• Step 14: Complete Individual Reasons Records; map decisions to evidence and selection logic; use file completeness checks; conduct peer reviews.

---