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

This evergreen document has been developed collaboratively by Government of Canada Employment Equity (EE) Networks to provide a comprehensive and equity‑informed interpretation of the 14‑step Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off (SERLO) process established by the Public Service Commission (PSC). Its purpose is to support departments and agencies in carrying out SERLO exercises that meet all legislative and policy requirements while also aligning with best practices in equitable workforce management.

While the PSC prescribes the mandatory procedural steps for SERLO, EE Networks recognize that the context in which these decisions occur evolves constantly. Demographic patterns shift, labour‑market availability changes, accessibility obligations expand, and new understandings of systemic barriers emerge. This evergreen document therefore integrates updated analytical methods, robust risk‑mitigation controls, and strengthened documentation standards so that the guidance remains relevant, adaptable, and future‑proof across multiple SERLO cycles.

The guidance reflects the lived expertise and professional knowledge of EE Networks. Throughout all 14 steps, decisions should be transparent, defensible, and informed by strong evidence. They should also remain consistent with the requirements and intent of the Employment Equity Act, the Accessible Canada Act, and the Official Languages Act, while supporting the identification and removal of systemic barriers and upholding fairness, dignity, and respect for all employees.

This document begins with Step 1—Determining the Desired Current and Future State of the Organization—because inaccuracies or biases introduced at Step 1 shape the entire SERLO process and cannot be fully corrected later. Each subsequent step follows the same structure: clarifying PSC requirements, highlighting equity risks, and describing practical mitigation controls.

Below is a revised Step 1 that defines terms the first time they appear, keeps a dedicated Equity Considerations section, removes administrative mechanics, and uses plain language throughout.

SERLO — Step 1: Determine the Current and Future State

Purpose

Step 1 sets the future state of work for the part of the organization undergoing change. A “SERLO” is the Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off process used when some, but not all, positions in a clearly defined organizational unit are no longer required. The “affected area” is that specific unit (for example, a branch, directorate, program, or region). Step 1 should align with the Employment Equity Act, the Accessible Canada Act, the Official Languages Act, the Workforce Adjustment Directive, and the Public Service Commission’s guide on Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off. Choices made here can either prevent or embed barriers, so equity is integrated at this stage.

What happens in Step 1

The organization decides what “continuing work” will remain. Continuing work means the duties and services that will still be delivered in the future structure. It also decides what work will cease or be reduced, which “functions” are required (a function is a set of related duties or a service line such as program delivery or policy development), how many indeterminate positions are needed to deliver the continuing work, and what knowledge, skills, experience, and language requirements are genuinely tied to those duties. These determinations are based on evidence about the work rather than tradition or who previously had access to opportunities.

Information to gather before deciding

The organization is required to prepare a current snapshot of the affected area, meaning the specific branch, directorate, program, or region included in the SERLO (Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off). This snapshot must state how many indeterminate employees (permanent employees without a term end date) are in scope, the mix of occupational groups and levels (for example, EC‑05, PM‑04), where employees are located (region or office), and the language requirements (the bilingual or unilingual “language profile”) attached to positions. It must also report the representation rates for women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities in the affected area.

The organization is required to identify the comparison points used to interpret that snapshot. These comparison points include the department’s representation baseline and Workforce Availability (WFA) for the relevant occupations and regions. WFA is a census‑based benchmark estimating how many people from designated groups are available for work in specific occupations and regions; for correct interpretation, the snapshot must name the census year used and note any definition changes affecting how designated groups are counted.

The organization is required to complete a skills gap analysis to show that future requirements are tied to the work. This analysis identifies the skills required in the future state (that is, after the change), the skills currently present in the affected area, and the gaps between them, citing the evidence for each required skill (for example, program obligations, service standards, legislative requirements, or specific systems that must be used). Every requirement—both skills and language—must be directly linked to the duties to ensure that requirements reflect the actual work rather than who previously had access to opportunity.

Equity considerations for Step 1

Define continuing work by duties and outcomes (not status or exposure)

What this is for: Determining which duties and services will remain in the future organizational state based on the work that must be performed and the outcomes that must be achieved, rather than on prestige, visibility, or who historically performed high‑exposure tasks.

Equity consideration: Describe continuing work in clear duty terms such as tasks, services, and outcomes, not status signals such as frequent executive briefings. For each function, meaning a set of related duties such as program delivery, policy development, research, compliance, or contact centre work, confirm that the decision to retain or eliminate it is based on operational need and evidence. If a function has a high concentration of designated group members, assess whether eliminating it would create a disproportionate impact. Where risk exists, test duty‑based alternatives such as re‑scoping, redistributing tasks, or partial retention to avoid deepening underrepresentation.

Replace experience shortcuts with competencies tied to the work

What this is for: Writing requirements that measure ability to do the job rather than past access to high‑visibility opportunities such as acting at a higher level or central agency exposure.

Equity consideration: Rewrite shortcuts as competencies directly linked to duties. Examples include can produce options analyses meeting specified criteria, can lead a defined type of review, or can operate a required system to an established standard. Accept multiple ways to demonstrate each competency such as deliverables, portfolios, relevant program experience, or community experience so capability rather than past visibility determines eligibility.

Use Workforce Availability to interpret representation clearly and cautiously

What this is for: Interpreting representation using Workforce Availability, which is a census‑based benchmark by occupation and region, while avoiding outdated or misaligned comparisons.

Equity consideration: State the Workforce Availability census year and any changes to designated group definitions. Confirm alignment between internal data and Workforce Availability for occupation and region so comparisons are valid. Where feasible, add one current labour indication for the same occupation and region to create a sensitivity view. Compare internal representation to both Workforce Availability and the sensitivity view. Apply two quick checks. First, calculate a growth differential as the recent indication minus Workforce Availability. If this is 3 to 5 percentage points or more, use caution before concluding overrepresentation. Second, perform a ratio check. If representation meets Workforce Availability but falls short of the sensitivity view, treat representation as at risk under current conditions. If risk is indicated, revisit which functions are retained, ensure all requirements are duty linked, remove experience shortcuts, set language levels to actual job needs, adjust regional distributions to avoid disproportionate losses, and where feasible phase changes or use attrition to limit immediate impact. Workforce Availability remains the statutory benchmark for reporting and the sensitivity view is a recommended equity safeguard.

Check regional impacts before consolidating locations

What this is for: Assessing representation effects when shifting where positions are located.

Equity consideration: Compare regional representation using Workforce Availability and, where feasible, a sensitivity view. If reductions cluster in regions with higher current representation, test mixed location options, distributed teams, hub and spoke models, or phased transitions that preserve diversity while meeting operational needs.

Set language requirements according to actual duties

What this is for: Ensuring the position’s language profile, meaning the bilingual or unilingual requirement, matches job duties and service obligations.

Equity consideration: Link each language level to specific duties and service contexts. Distinguish day one requirements from development needs. Where appropriate, provide learning plans or phased pathways so otherwise qualified candidates are not excluded at the outset.

Forecast accessibility and accommodation impacts early

What this is for: Anticipating effects of location, technology, and remote work changes on employees who rely on accommodation, such as adaptive technology, flexible schedules, or remote work.

Equity consideration: Conduct a forward barrier forecast covering relocations, technology shifts, and remote work adjustments. Plan adaptive tools, flexible arrangements, phased transitions, and case specific solutions. Keep platforms and formats accessible throughout transitions.

Test each requirement for necessity and fairness

What this is for: Ensuring all skill, experience, and language requirements reflect what the job truly needs.

Equity consideration: Link each requirement to an essential duty or outcome. Remove or reduce any requirement without a clear duty link. Where higher requirements are justified, provide a time bound path to attainment such as structured training with milestones.

Monitor the representation floor before finalizing decisions

What this is for: Preventing decisions that push representation below reasonable thresholds such as the departmental baseline, occupational availability, or the sensitivity view.

Equity consideration: Compare current and projected representation to each benchmark before confirming the future state. If the future state would fall below a benchmark, adjust the design by redistributing positions, regrouping duties, or revising requirements, or apply mitigations such as redeployment, development pathways, or attrition based reductions.

Use a projection to identify adverse impact

What this is for: Estimating post change representation to spot disproportionate losses in advance.

Equity consideration: Calculate projected representation as the current number in the designated group minus proposed reductions affecting that group, divided by total positions in the future state. Compare the result to Workforce Availability and the sensitivity view. If the projection is below either benchmark, plan mitigations before finalizing. Examples include adjusting which functions remain, redistributing positions, right sizing requirements, or phasing changes. This is a recommended safeguard, not a legal requirement unless set by departmental policy.

Choosing which duties and services will remain in the future organizational state.

How it can perpetuate inequity: If decisions rely on status or exposure (for example, frequent executive briefings) instead of concrete duties, employees who historically had more access to high‑visibility work are favoured, which can disadvantage Indigenous employees, racialized employees, persons with disabilities, and employees hired through targeted recruitment.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Describe continuing work in duty terms (tasks, services, outcomes), not prestige signals. For each function proposed for retention or elimination, record the operational need and evidence. Check whether employees in that function are highly concentrated from a designated group; if so, examine duty‑based alternatives (re‑scoping duties, redistributing tasks, or partial retention) to avoid deepening underrepresentation.

Replace “experience shortcuts” with competencies tied to the work

What this consideration is for: Writing requirements that measure ability to do the job rather than past access to opportunity. “Experience shortcuts” are short‑hand requirements such as “has acted at a higher level,” “has central agency exposure,” or “has frequent executive briefing experience.”

How it can perpetuate inequity: These shortcuts privilege employees who had access to high‑visibility assignments and can exclude equally capable employees who did not.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Rewrite requirements as competencies linked to duties (for example, “can produce options analyses meeting criteria X,” “can lead type‑Y reviews,” “can operate system Z to standard S”). Allow multiple ways to demonstrate the competency (deliverables, portfolios, program or community work), so capability—not past visibility—drives eligibility.

Use Workforce Availability (WFA) to interpret representation—clearly and cautiously

What this consideration is for: Interpreting representation using WFA while guarding against outdated or misaligned comparisons.

Why it matters: WFA is census‑based and can lag current labour conditions; when used on its own, it may understate current availability and mislabel groups as “overrepresented” or hide shortfalls.

What to check (keep it tight and consistent):

• Name the census year used for WFA and any definition changes to designated groups since the prior cycle.
• Confirm alignment between the internal analysis and WFA (same occupation and same region).
• Where feasible, identify one more current labour indication for the same occupation/region (for example, a recent labour force estimate or another accepted internal indicator) to form a sensitivity view. How to analyze (minimal but actionable):
• Compare internal representation to both Official WFA and the sensitivity view.
• Two quick checks help interpretation:
  • Growth differential: recent labour indication − Official WFA. If ≥ 3–5 percentage points, use caution before concluding overrepresentation.
  • Ratio check: if representation appears adequate versus Official WFA but falls short versus the sensitivity view, treat the group as at risk under current conditions. How to act on the results:
• If risk is indicated, revisit which functions are retained, tie all requirements to duties (remove experience shortcuts), right‑size language levels to actual job needs, and adjust regional distribution to avoid disproportionate losses in higher‑representation areas.
• Where feasible, phase changes or use attrition to limit immediate adverse impact. (Note: WFA remains the statutory benchmark for reporting; the sensitivity view is a recommended equity safeguard.)

Check regional impacts before consolidating locations

What this consideration is for: Assessing representation effects when shifting where positions are located.

How it can perpetuate inequity: Moving positions from regions with higher representation of visible minorities or Indigenous peoples to regions with lower representation can reduce overall diversity.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Compare regional representation using WFA and, where feasible, a sensitivity view. If reductions cluster in higher‑representation regions, test options such as distributed teams, mixed‑location models, hub‑and‑spoke arrangements, or phased transitions that preserve diversity while meeting operational needs.

Set language requirements according to actual duties

What this consideration is for: Ensuring the position’s language profile (the bilingual or unilingual requirement) matches job duties and service obligations.

How it can perpetuate inequity: Raising language levels beyond what duties require can exclude otherwise qualified employees, especially those with fewer training opportunities.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Link each language level to specific duties and service contexts. Distinguish day‑one requirements from development needs. Where appropriate, provide learning plans or phased pathways so otherwise qualified candidates are not excluded at the outset.

Forecast accessibility and accommodation impacts early

What this consideration is for: Anticipating how changes to location, technology, or remote‑work expectations will affect employees who rely on accommodation. Accommodation means changes that help employees perform their work (for example, adaptive technology, flexible schedules, or remote work).

How it can perpetuate inequity: Removing remote options, relocating roles, or changing platforms without planning can create new barriers for accommodated employees.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Conduct a forward‑looking barrier forecast that examines location changes, technology shifts, and remote‑work adjustments. Plan adaptive tools, flexible arrangements, phased transitions, and case‑specific solutions that maintain productivity without creating new barriers. Ensure communication formats and platforms remain accessible.

Test each requirement for necessity and fairness

What this consideration is for: Ensuring all requirements reflect what the job truly needs to achieve.

How it can perpetuate inequity: Requirements that exceed duty needs can screen out capable candidates and disproportionately affect designated groups.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Link every requirement—skills, experience, and language—to an essential duty or outcome. Remove or reduce requirements without a clear duty link. Where higher requirements are justified, provide a time‑bound path to attainment (for example, structured training with milestones).

Monitor the representation floor before finalizing decisions

What this consideration is for: Preventing decisions that push representation below reasonable thresholds. The representation floor is the point below which representation becomes concerning (for example, below the departmental baseline, below occupational availability, or below the sensitivity view).

How it can perpetuate inequity: If representation is already low, eliminating positions without adjustment can deepen underrepresentation.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Compare current and projected representation to each benchmark before confirming the future state. If the future state would fall below a benchmark, adjust the design (redistribute positions, regroup duties, revise requirements) or apply mitigations such as redeployment, development pathways, or attrition‑based reductions.

Use a projection to identify adverse impact (recommended safeguard)

What this consideration is for: Estimating representation after proposed changes to spot disproportionate losses in advance.

How to calculate:

Projected representation = (current number of employees in a designated group − proposed reductions affecting that group) ÷ total positions in the future state.

How to ensure it is done equitably: Compare the projected result to Official WFA and the sensitivity view. If the projection falls below either benchmark, plan mitigations before finalizing (for example, adjust which functions remain, redistribute positions, right‑size requirements, or phase changes). This projection is recommended as an equity safeguard; it is not a legal requirement unless set by departmental policy.

1) Define continuing work by duties and outcomes, not status or exposure

When identifying “continuing work,” meaning the duties and services that will remain in the future state, definitions may drift toward status-based criteria (for example, valuing who had more contact with executives) instead of concrete job duties.

Risk: Status‑based definitions can disproportionately affect Indigenous employees, racialized employees, persons with disabilities, and employees hired through targeted recruitment, because access to high‑visibility or high‑status work is not evenly distributed.

How to address:

For each function being kept or eliminated (a function is a set of related duties, such as program delivery or policy development), document the operational need and the evidence that supports it. Identify whether employees in the function are heavily concentrated from any designated group. If a function with high concentration is being removed or reduced, provide a duty‑based rationale and consider redesign options, such as redistributing duties or adjusting scope, to avoid deepening underrepresentation.

---

2) Replace “experience shortcuts” with competencies tied directly to the work

“Experience shortcuts” are short-hand requirements that depend on who had access to opportunity rather than on what the job actually requires. Examples include requiring that someone “has acted at a higher level,” “has central agency exposure,” or “has frequent executive briefing experience.”

Risk: Experience shortcuts favour employees who previously had access to certain opportunities and can exclude capable employees who did not.

How to address:

Replace these shortcuts with competencies linked to duties. Describe what the job requires someone to do, such as producing a type of briefing, leading a type of review, or operating a specific system. Accept multiple ways of demonstrating that competency, including portfolios, deliverables, program experience, or community experience, so that requirements reflect ability rather than past visibility.

---

3) Use Workforce Availability (WFA) as an equity checkpoint

Workforce Availability (WFA) is a census‑based estimate of how many people from designated groups are available for work in each occupation and region. Because WFA uses census data, it may not reflect current labour market conditions.

Risk: WFA can understate current diversity, especially where growth in a designated group is rapid. When used alone, it can suggest an apparent overrepresentation or mask a shortfall.

What to check:

State the census year used for WFA and note any definition changes since the last cycle. Ensure the internal comparison uses the same occupation and region as the WFA benchmark so the results are valid. Where possible, identify a more recent labour indicator for the same occupation or region, such as a recent labour force estimate or other accepted evidence.

How to analyze (recommended safeguards):

Use Official WFA as the primary benchmark for Employment Equity reporting. Add a “sensitivity view” that reflects more current labour trends to help interpret whether WFA may be understating availability.

Organizations can use the following calculations with simple numbers from their data:

• Adjusted availability = Official WFA + (Recent labour estimate − Census proportion used for WFA)
• Attainment ratio = Internal representation ÷ Official WFA
• Sensitivity ratio = Internal representation ÷ Adjusted availability
• Growth differential = Recent labour estimate − Official WFA

How to interpret results:

If the growth differential is three to five percentage points or more, proceed cautiously before concluding that a group is overrepresented. If the attainment ratio is above one but the sensitivity ratio is below one, treat the group as at risk under current labour conditions.

How to mitigate:

Review whether functions being removed or retained disproportionately affect designated groups. Ensure requirements are tied to duties and avoid experience shortcuts. Set language levels according to actual work needs. Consider geographic distribution options that avoid removing positions from regions with higher representation. Where feasible, use phased changes or natural attrition to reduce immediate adverse impact.

Information to retain:

Keep a plain-language note recording the census year, any definition changes, how the occupation and region were aligned with WFA, and the results of the calculations.

---

4) Check regional impacts before consolidating locations

When relocating or consolidating positions across regions, impacts may differ depending on who works in each location.

Risk: Moving positions to regions with lower representation of visible minorities or Indigenous peoples can reduce diversity in the future state.

How to address:

Compare representation by region using WFA and a sensitivity view when available. If most reductions occur in higher‑representation regions, test alternative options such as distributed teams, mixed-location models, or hub‑and‑spoke arrangements that preserve diversity while still meeting operational needs.

---

5) Set language requirements according to actual duties

A language profile is the bilingual or unilingual requirement assigned to a position.

Risk: Increasing language levels beyond what the job requires can act as an indirect barrier, especially for employees who have had fewer opportunities for language training.

How to address:

Link every language requirement to specific duties and service needs. Distinguish between requirements needed on day one and those that could be developed over time. Where appropriate, use training plans, temporary measures, or development pathways to avoid excluding otherwise qualified people.

---

6) Forecast accessibility and accommodation impacts early

Accommodation refers to changes that help employees do their work, such as adaptive technology, flexible schedules, or remote work.

Risk: Changes to remote work, job locations, or technology may create barriers for employees who rely on accommodations.

How to address:

Conduct a forward‑looking barrier forecast that examines the impact of location changes, technology shifts, and remote‑work adjustments. Prepare adaptive tools, flexible working options, gradual transitions, and case‑specific solutions that maintain productivity without creating new barriers. Ensure communication formats and digital platforms remain accessible during and after the transition.

---

7) Test each requirement for necessity and fairness

Requirements—whether for skills, experience, or language—must reflect what the job truly needs to achieve.

Risk: Requirements that exceed what the duties demand can screen out capable candidates and disproportionately affect designated groups.

How to address:

Link every requirement to a specific duty. Remove or reduce any requirement that is not essential. When higher requirements are necessary, provide a clear and time‑bound plan for candidates to meet them.

---

8) Monitor the representation floor before finalizing decisions

The “representation floor” is the point below which representation becomes concerning, such as below the departmental baseline, below occupational availability, or below the sensitivity view.

Risk: If representation is already low, reductions may deepen underrepresentation.

How to address:

Compare current representation to each benchmark. If a proposed change would push representation below one of the thresholds, revisit the future‑state design, adjust the distribution of positions, revise requirements, or use mitigations such as redeployment, development pathways, or attrition‑based reductions.

---

Recommended projection to identify adverse impact

A projection is a simple estimate of what representation will look like after the proposed changes.

How to calculate:

Projected representation = (Current number of employees in a designated group − Proposed reductions affecting that group) ÷ (Total positions in the future state)

How to use it:

Compare the result to both Official WFA and the sensitivity view. If the projection falls below either comparison point, plan mitigations before finalizing the future state. This projection is a recommended equity safeguard, not a legal requirement unless set by departmental policy.

---

Documentation to retain (substantive only)

Keep the analysis used to inform decisions in Step 1, written in plain language. This includes the future‑state rationale, the workforce snapshot and benchmarks (including the census year and definitions used), the skills gap analysis with clear links to duties, the equity risk analysis and any mitigations applied, and the WFA data‑currency note with the calculations used to interpret availability.1) Define continuing work by duties and outcomes, not by status or exposure

Risk: Definitions can drift toward status‑based criteria such as “worked frequently with executives” rather than concrete duties. This can disproportionately affect Indigenous employees, racialized employees, persons with disabilities, and employees hired through targeted recruitment.

How to address: For each function that will be retained or eliminated, record the operational need and the evidence supporting it. Note whether incumbents are heavily concentrated from any designated group. If a concentrated function will be removed or reduced, provide a duty‑based rationale and explore redesign options such as re‑scoping duties or reassigning tasks to avoid deepening underrepresentation.

2) Replace “experience shortcuts” with competencies tied to the work

“Experience shortcuts” are short‑hand requirements that depend on access to opportunity rather than on what the job requires (for example, “has acted at a higher level,” “has central agency exposure,” or “has frequent executive briefing experience”).

Risk: Experience shortcuts favour employees who previously had access to opportunities and can exclude capable employees who did not.

How to address: Replace experience shortcuts with competencies that are directly tied to the job. Describe the knowledge, skills, and outputs required (for example, “can produce X‑type briefings,” “can lead Y‑type reviews,” “can operate Z‑system”) and allow multiple ways to demonstrate them, such as deliverables, portfolios, program work, or community experience.

3) Use Workforce Availability as an equity checkpoint

WFA is the census‑based estimate of labour market availability by occupation and region; it can lag behind current conditions.

Risk: WFA may understate current diversity, especially where growth is rapid, which can produce apparent overrepresentation or mask shortfalls when used alone.

What to check: State the census year used for WFA and note any definition changes since the last cycle. Confirm that internal analysis uses the same occupation and region as the WFA benchmark (this is called denominator alignment). Identify, where feasible, a more recent labour indication for the same occupation or region (for example, a recent labour force estimate or a departmentally accepted proxy).

How to analyze (recommended safeguards): Keep Official WFA as the primary benchmark for reporting. Add a “sensitivity view” that reflects more current conditions to help interpret risk. Use these simple calculations with real numbers from the organization:

Adjusted availability = Official WFA + (Recent labour indication − Census proportion used in WFA)

Attainment ratio = Internal representation ÷ Official WFA

Sensitivity ratio = Internal representation ÷ Adjusted availability

Growth differential = Recent labour indication − Official WFA

How to interpret results: If the growth differential is three to five percentage points or more, use heightened caution before concluding overrepresentation. If the attainment ratio is above one but the sensitivity ratio is below one, treat the group as at risk under current labour conditions.

How to mitigate: Revisit which functions are retained if impacts are concentrated on designated groups. Tighten requirements so they are duty‑linked and remove experience shortcuts. Set language requirements to match real service and work needs. Consider regional distributions that avoid disproportionate losses in higher‑representation regions. Where feasible, phase changes or use attrition to limit immediate adverse impact.

Evidence to retain: Record the census year, any definition changes, the denominator alignment, and the calculation results that informed decisions. Keep the explanation in plain language.

4) Check regional impacts before consolidating locations

Risk: Moving positions to regions with lower representation of visible minorities or Indigenous peoples can reduce diversity.

How to address: Compare representation by region using WFA and, where feasible, a sensitivity view based on more current labour indications. If most reductions occur in higher‑representation regions, test alternative distributions, distributed teams, or hub‑and‑spoke models that preserve diversity while meeting operational needs.

5) Set language requirements according to the work

A “language profile” is the level of bilingualism or unilingualism a position requires.

Risk: Raising language levels beyond what duties require can operate as an indirect filter.

How to address: Link each language requirement to specific duties and service obligations. Distinguish immediate job needs from development needs. Where feasible, use learning plans, temporary measures, or development pathways so otherwise qualified candidates are not excluded at the outset.

6) Forecast accessibility and accommodation impacts early

“Accommodation” means changes that help employees do their jobs, such as adaptive technology, flexible schedules, or remote work.

Risk: Reductions in remote work, relocations, or technology changes can disadvantage employees who rely on accommodations.

How to address: Conduct a forward barrier forecast that considers remote‑work changes, relocations, and technology shifts. Plan adaptive tools, flexible arrangements, phased transitions, and case‑by‑case solutions that maintain productivity and avoid new barriers. Ensure communication formats and platforms remain accessible during and after the transition.

7) Test each requirement for necessity and fairness

Risk: Requirements that are broader or higher than the duties demand can screen out capable candidates.

How to address: Link every requirement to a specific duty. Remove or lower any requirement that is not essential. Where higher requirements are necessary, set a clear, time‑bound path to attain them, such as a training plan.

8) Monitor the representation floor before finalizing

The “representation floor” is the point below which representation would be considered problematic, such as below the departmental baseline, below occupational availability, or below the sensitivity view.

Risk: If representation is already low, reductions can deepen underrepresentation.

How to address: Note current levels against each benchmark. If a proposed change would push representation lower, adjust the future‑state design, redistribute positions, revise requirements, or use mitigations such as redeployment, development pathways, or attrition‑based reductions.

Recommended projection to prevent adverse impact

A “projection” is a simple estimate of representation after the proposed changes.

How to calculate: Projected representation = (Current number of employees in a designated group − Proposed reductions that affect that group) ÷ (Total positions in the future state).

How to use it: Compare the projected result to Official WFA and the sensitivity view. If the projection is below either benchmark, plan mitigations before finalizing (for example, adjust which functions remain, redistribute positions, right‑size requirements, or phase changes). This projection is recommended as an equity control; it is not a legal requirement unless stated by departmental policy.

Documentation to retain (substance, not administration)

Retain the analysis that supports decisions in plain language. Include the future‑state rationale, the workforce snapshot and benchmarks (with census year and definitions), the skills gap analysis with clear links to duties, the equity risk analysis and mitigations across geography, language, accessibility, and requirements, and the WFA data‑currency note with the simple calculations used to interpret availability.

Quick review questions for employee networks

Do descriptions of continuing work focus on specific duties and outcomes rather than status or exposure.

Are requirements written as competencies tied to duties, with multiple ways to demonstrate them instead of experience shortcuts.

Are language requirements tied to duties and service needs, with development options where feasible.

Have regional impacts on representation been assessed and, if needed, redistributed or phased.

Have accessibility impacts from remote work, relocations, and technology changes been forecast with concrete mitigations.

Is the census year stated and any definition changes noted, and has a sensitivity view been considered alongside WFA.

Do projections indicate representation will stay at or above benchmarks; if not, are mitigations planned.

If a function with a high concentration of designated‑group employees is being eliminated, is there a duty‑based rationale and a redesign or transitional plan to avoid deepening underrepresentation.

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

Legislative and Policy Framework

This step is grounded in the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), s.64, the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER), s.22, the PSC Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off Guide, the Employment Equity Act, the Accessible Canada Act, the Official Languages Act, and the Workforce Adjustment Directive (WFAD). These instruments collectively set the conditions for initiating SERLO and shape the employer’s obligations during restructuring. Step 1 establishes the operational basis for initiating a SERLO. It begins when the Deputy Head determines that the services of some, but not all, employees in a defined area are no longer required due to lack of work, a discontinued function, or organizational restructuring under PSEA s.64.

Determinations required before any assessment.

Before assessing employees, the organization determines what work will continue or cease/reduce, which functions are required in the future state, how many indeterminate positions are needed to perform ongoing work, and what knowledge, skills, experience, and language requirements will exist.

Environmental scan requirements.

Decisions are informed by a workforce analysis, a skills‑gap analysis, and a review of representation rates for designated EE groups in the affected area.

Structural foundation reminder.

Early misinterpretations—particularly around representation and labour‑market context—create distortions that later equity controls cannot fully correct.

2. Required Actors

Accountable authority.

The Deputy Head is accountable for initiating SERLO under PSEA s.64.

Operational lead.

A delegated manager with sub‑delegated staffing authority leads operational execution.

Required support functions.

HR Workforce Planning, HR Analytics, Employment Equity/Diversity & Inclusion, Accessibility/Duty to Accommodate, Official Languages, Classification, and Finance/Corporate Planning must provide documented inputs to ensure the decision is evidence‑based and compliant.

3. Mandatory Documentation — Step 1 Decision Record

A formal Step 1 Decision Record must be created and retained in the SERLO file.

Future‑state rationale.

Describe the programs/services to be discontinued, reduced, transferred, or restructured; cite the authority (e.g., TB decision, Departmental Plan, budget decision, mandate shift); specify the number of positions in the future state; include the future‑state org chart.

Workforce snapshot.

Identify total indeterminate employees, group/level distribution, geographic distribution, official‑language profiles, and representation rates for women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities.

Comparison benchmarks.

Record the departmental representation baseline, official Workforce Availability (WFA) values, the census year used, and the definitions for each EE group.

Skills‑gap analysis.

Identify the future‑state skills required, the skills currently present, the gaps, and the evidence sources.

Risk and mitigation record.

Document representation impacts, availability‑sensitivity modelling, language‑profile justification, a barrier forecast, and signed approvals.

4. Structural Risk of Workforce Availability Reliance

Official WFA is based on census data collected every five years, released with delays, sometimes with definitional changes, and may not reflect rapid demographic growth. For visible minority groups especially, recent labour‑market availability may be higher than census‑based WFA.

Resulting risks.

Apparent overrepresentation can occur when current availability outpaces census benchmarks; false neutrality can occur when planned reductions look compliant against outdated benchmarks yet entrench underrepresentation in today’s labour market.

Compliance context.

Under the Employment Equity Act, representation goals should reflect labour‑market availability; relying solely on outdated proxies risks distorted analysis.

5. Required Workforce‑Availability Mitigation Controls

Census currency disclosure.

Record the census year, the time gap from the current workforce, any definitional changes, and denominator alignment (owned by HR Analytics).

Dual benchmark requirement.

Compare internal representation to both official WFA and a growth‑adjusted sensitivity benchmark; record discrepancies.

Growth‑adjusted sensitivity formula.

Adjusted availability equals official WFA plus the (recent LFS proportion minus the census proportion); use for impact modelling, not statutory reporting.

Attainment ratio analysis.

Calculate the attainment ratio (representation ÷ official WFA) and the sensitivity ratio (representation ÷ adjusted availability); if attainment > 1.0 but sensitivity < 1.0, document representation risk.

Future‑state projection.

Project future representation and compare to both official and adjusted availability; if below either benchmark, consider mitigation.

External growth differential.

Exercise heightened caution when LFS availability exceeds WFA by 3–5 percentage points or more.

6. Equity Risk Areas at Step 1

6.1 Continuing‑work definition.

Avoid defining continuing work via historically advantaged pathways; document operational necessity, evidence sources, demographic concentrations, and rationales for elimination.

6.2 Opportunity proxy risk.

Replace proxies such as acting experience, central‑agency exposure, or executive‑briefing experience with competency‑based criteria tied to duties.

6.3 Geographic consolidation risk.

Model representational impacts of consolidation across regions before finalizing.

6.4 Official‑language profile escalation.

Validate language requirements against actual duties with Official Languages.

7. Barrier Forecast

Accessibility and DEI assess potential barriers arising from remote‑work changes, consolidation, and technology changes, and document mitigation measures.

8. Representation Floor Review

If representation is below adjusted availability, the departmental baseline, or occupational availability, document how reductions will not deepen underrepresentation (this is an awareness control, not a quota).

9. Required Sign‑Off Before Proceeding to Step 2

Include WFA benchmarks, census‑year disclosure, sensitivity modelling, future‑state projections, discrepancy explanations, justification tables, skills‑neutrality and language‑objectivity reviews, and a barrier forecast. EE provides written validation of representation‑risk review; the delegated manager certifies that decisions were informed by analysis and documented mitigations.

10. Structural Importance of Step 1

Decisions about continuing work, retained positions, and essential skills set the trajectory for the entire SERLO. A Step 1 based on outdated or incomplete availability analysis can be procedurally compliant yet structurally inequitable.

---

Legislative and Policy Basis

Under PSEA s.64(1), employees may be laid off when services are no longer required due to lack of work, discontinuance of a function, or transfer of work. Under PSEA s.64(2), when only some employees in any part of the organization may be laid off, the PSER SERLO process must be applied. The PSC Guide (Step 2) requires delegated managers, with HR support, to determine the affected part(s) and document specific elements. WFAD obligations depend on counts of affected employees in the same group and level in the same work unit, so Step 2 scope decisions directly shape WFA supports. The primary reference is the PSC’s Step 2 guidance.

1. What This Step Is

Step 2 defines the “affected part(s)” for workforce adjustment and potential SERLO, creating the scope boundary that governs fairness, comparability, consistency, and how WFAD obligations apply.

1.1 Purpose. The scope ensures like‑with‑like comparisons and access to consistent supports.

1.2 What the scope determines. The scope identifies which organizational units are affected (e.g., work unit, section, division, directorate), whether the scope is local, regional, or national, and which programs or types of work are included.

1.3 PSC requirements. Delegated managers, with HR, must name the affected sections/divisions/directorates, the applicable geography, and the program(s) or types of work in each affected part.

1.4 Equity importance. Defining scope too narrowly, inconsistently, or around incumbents rather than work produces avoidable inequity and may disproportionately affect EE groups.

2. Who Completes This Step

Accountable decision‑maker. Delegated Manager (with delegated staffing authority).

Required support. HR Specialist (WFA, staffing, classification, documentation).

Mandatory equity/compliance engagement. Employment Equity/IDEAA/Anti‑Racism, HR Analytics, Accessibility/Duty to Accommodate, Official Languages, Labour Relations, Corporate Planning/Finance, and Classification.

3. Mandatory Outputs and Documentation

A Step 2 Scope Determination Record must be created and preserved.

A. Scope definition (PSC minimum). Identify the affected organizational units (sections/divisions/directorates), state the geographic boundary (local/regional/national), and specify the program(s)/type(s) of work included.

B. Scope rationale. Explain why the scope reflects work being reduced/discontinued/transferred, why it is not broader/narrower, whether similar work exists elsewhere and why it is included/excluded, and how it aligns with Step 1.

C. Scope map and position linkage. Include or reference current and future‑state org charts, a list of included work units, and a brief description of the type of work for each.

D. Equity impact summary. Include a representation snapshot for the proposed scope, comparisons to departmental baselines and to both official WFA and the Step 1 sensitivity benchmark, and a statement on whether the scope concentrates risk in higher‑representation units.

E. Scope change control. If scope changes later, record what changed, why, who approved, how employees and bargaining agents were informed, and an updated equity assessment.

4. What Can Go Wrong (Equity Risks)

Scope around incumbents, not work; inconsistent scope across similar work; geographic boundaries causing adverse impact; manipulated scope to alter WFAD triggers; and outdated WFA justifying narrow scope are the main risks.

5. Mitigations (Specific, Operational, Auditable)

Work‑based scope test (mandatory). Provide a work‑anchored scope statement, an evidence anchor, and a similar‑work check; auditors must see the scope is about work, not people.

Scope equity impact assessment (mandatory). Produce a representation snapshot, run a scope‑concentration test, and apply Step 1 sensitivity rules; document results, risks, and mitigation decisions.

Geographic boundary fairness controls. Show why broader scope is not appropriate, check regional distribution, forecast participation/access barriers, and plan for consistent access.

WFAD trigger awareness and consistency. Document counts by group/level, whether VDP may be required, and affirm the scope was not selected to avoid WFA provisions.

Approval and governance sign‑off. Obtain written confirmations from HR, EE, Accessibility, and LR.

6. Minimum “Done” Criteria Before Proceeding to Step 3

The file must include the Scope Determination Record (org unit + geography + work boundary), a written rationale tied to Step 1, verification of similar work elsewhere, a representation snapshot with concentration analysis, WFA currency/sensitivity considerations, WFAD trigger awareness, and all required sign‑offs.

---

STEP 3 — Identify the Positions and the Affected Employees

Legislative and Policy Framework

Step 3 is guided by PSEA s.64 and s.65, PSER s.22, the PSC SERLO Guide, the WFAD, the Employment Equity Act, the Accessible Canada Act, and the Official Languages Act. The PSC’s SERLO guide is the primary operational reference.

1. What This Step Is

Step 3 identifies the positions within the affected part that may be reduced, the indeterminate employees who substantively occupy those positions, and the SERLO pool(s) for comparison. At this step, the abstract “affected part” becomes a concrete group/level pool with named incumbents.

PSC requirements. Only indeterminate employees in substantive positions are included; employees temporarily absent (e.g., leave, assignment, secondment, Interchange) are included if they substantively hold an in‑scope position; term, casual, student, and temporary help are not included.

Structural importance. Errors here distort the entire SERLO; flawed pool construction introduces inequity that later steps cannot fix.

2. What Must Be Identified

A. Positions. Identify all positions at the same group/level, confirm which perform similar duties, and ensure alignment to continuing or reduced work from Step 1. Generic job descriptions do not automatically establish similarity—objective evidence does.

B. Employees. Include all indeterminate incumbents (including those on leave, acting elsewhere, on Interchange or secondment) whose substantive position is in scope; exclude term, casual, students, and temporary help.

3. Required Actors

Accountable. Delegated Manager.

Mandatory support. HR Staffing Advisor; Classification; HR Systems/Pay & Position Data; Labour Relations; Employment Equity; Accessibility.

4. Mandatory Documentation — Step 3 File Requirements

A. Position identification record. Record position number, group/level, location, language profile, reporting relationship, current incumbent, and status (encumbered/vacant).

B. Duty similarity analysis. For each position, describe core duties, compare against other positions at the same group/level, and record the inclusion/exclusion rationale (not based on titles alone).

C. Employee inclusion log. For each indeterminate employee, record name, substantive position number, current status, confirmation of inclusion, and notification details (date/method).

D. On‑leave inclusion log. Track employees on leave, type of leave, confirmation of contact, and confirmation that accommodations and access were provided.

5. Equity Risks at Step 3

Inconsistent “similar duties” interpretation; exclusion or delayed contact for employees on leave; language/location data errors; acting assignment distortions; and occupational clustering combined with inconsistent grouping all raise equity risks.

6. Mandatory and Control‑Based Mitigations

Objective duty similarity test (HR Staffing + Delegated Manager). Compare duties, identify core functions and material differences, and document rationale.

Cross‑unit similar work check (HR Staffing). Confirm whether similar work exists elsewhere and record the inclusion/exclusion rationale.

Data validation control (HR Systems + Classification). Validate substantive incumbent, tenure, group/level, language, location, and reporting structure for each position.

Leave equity control (HR Advisor + Accessibility). Ensure inclusion, timely communication, and accessible process for all employees on leave.

Representation pool snapshot (HR Analytics + EE). Calculate representation rates, compare with Step 1 projections and WFA/sensitivity benchmarks, and document any disproportionate impact.

Acting assignment clarification (HR Staffing). Ensure acting incumbents are not treated as substantive and that substantive incumbents acting elsewhere are included.

7. How to Operationalize the Similar Duties Analysis

Include a Similar Duties Matrix capturing position number, group/level, core duties, unique duties, inclusion (Y/N), and rationale to ensure transparency and auditability.

8. Governance Sign‑Off

Before Step 4, the file must include the complete position list, the rationale for pool structure, the inclusion logs (including leave), validated position/incumbent data, the representation snapshot, delegated manager approval, HR confirmation, and EE validation.

9. Structural Importance of Step 3

Because Step 3 determines who is compared for retention, narrow pools, exclusion of similar work, mishandled leave cases, or data errors compromise fairness and cannot be remediated later.

---

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

Legislative and Policy Framework

Step 4 is governed by PSEA s.64–65, PSER s.21 and s.22, the PSC SERLO Guide, the WFAD and relevant collective agreement appendices, the Official Languages Act, and the Accessible Canada Act. The PSC’s guide is the primary operational reference.

1. What This Step Is

Step 4 is the formal notification and consultation phase after Steps 2–3 and before assessment. It ensures required central‑agency notification, structured bargaining‑agent consultation, and timely, equitable communication to employees. This is not a lay‑off notice (that occurs in Step 13); this is advance notification of workforce adjustment and SERLO use.

PSC requirements. Consult bargaining agents as early as possible; notify TBS OCHRO confidentially and in writing at least four working days before any announcement likely to meet WFAD thresholds; and coordinate with the TBS OCHRO Leadership Policies Division for executives.

2. Required Actors

Accountable. Delegated Manager.

Mandatory support. Labour Relations; HR WFA Advisor; HR Staffing Advisor; Corporate Communications; Employment Equity; Accessibility; Official Languages.

Executive‑specific support. TBS OCHRO Leadership Policies Division liaison.

3. Mandatory Notifications

A. TBS OCHRO. Notify in writing, in confidence, at least four working days before a public announcement, and early enough for oversight.

B. Bargaining agents. Notify as soon as possible, provide names and work locations of affected employees, and maintain ongoing consultation.

C. Employees. Provide clear information that their area is affected, that SERLO may occur, the timelines involved, and the WFA rights/supports available (organizational notification, not an individual lay‑off notice).

4. Mandatory Documentation — Step 4 File Requirements

A. TBS OCHRO record. Date sent, transmission method, receipt confirmation, and copy of the notice.

B. Bargaining‑agent consultation log. Date, representatives, information provided, questions/responses, and schedule for ongoing consultation.

C. Employee notification package. Announcement of affected part, explanation that SERLO may occur, next steps, WFA rights/supports, contacts (HR/WFA/union), and bilingual versions.

D. Distribution log. Each employee notified, date/method, separate list for employees on leave, and confirmation that alternate formats were available.

5. Equity Risks at Step 4

Late or missing notices to employees on leave; inaccessible or unilingual communications; uneven timing; incomplete information on voluntary departure/alternation/recourse; and disproportionate psychological impact where EE groups are concentrated are key risks.

6. Mandatory and Control‑Based Mitigations

Single release protocol (HR Staffing + LR). Send all notifications simultaneously; use confirmed delivery for employees on leave; timestamp releases.

Leave inclusion outreach (HR Advisor). Maintain a complete leave list, confirm preferred contact methods, document outreach/confirmations, and ensure access to union/WFA resources.

Accessibility & OL compliance (Accessibility + OL). Ensure bilingual notices, accessible formats, and clear accommodation contacts.

Consultation documentation control (LR). Record that consultation occurred, information was provided, and questions were addressed.

WFA rights information control (HR WFA). Include WFA options, voluntary departure (if applicable), alternation process, and recourse mechanisms.

Representation monitoring (EE + HR Analytics). Review representation patterns post‑notification, flag disproportionate impacts, and brief the delegated manager.

7. Executive‑Specific Requirements

For executives, notify the TBS OCHRO Leadership Policies Division, issue notices under executive WFA directives, and keep separate documentation.

8. Governance Sign‑Off Before Proceeding to Step 5

Include TBS OCHRO notification evidence, the bargaining‑agent consultation log, the employee notification package, the distribution log (including leave employees), accessibility and official‑languages confirmations, representation monitoring notes, and delegated manager approval.

9. Structural Importance of Step 4

Step 4 establishes the transparency foundation for SERLO. Inconsistent notification, disadvantaged leave cases, inaccessible communications, or incomplete consultation undermines procedural fairness and trust. Done correctly, Step 4 ensures equitable access to information, representation, supports, and rights.

---