720
edits
Changes
Detailed Equity Considerations for SERLO / Considérations détaillées en matière d’équité pour le SERLO (view source)
Revision as of 23:53, 16 February 2026
, 16 Februaryno edit summary
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.
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.
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.
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.
== Provide your feedback on BizChat ==
== This section brings together all equity checkpoints, explains the risks, and provides concrete actions organizations can take. ==
== 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.
== If the same approach is needed for Step 2, indicate and a matching equity‑anchored version will be prepared. ==
== STEP 1 — Determine the Desired Current and Future State of the Organization ==
== STEP 1 — Determine the Desired Current and Future State of the Organization ==