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.

Step 1: Determine the Current and Future State

Step 1 defines the future state of work for the organizational unit that is undergoing change. A SERLO is the Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off process used when some, but not all, positions in a defined unit are no longer required. The affected area is the specific branch, directorate, program, region, or other organizational unit included in the SERLO. Step 1 must be carried out in a way that aligns 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. Decisions made at this stage shape all later steps and can either reduce or reinforce inequities, so equity must be addressed from the beginning.

What happens in Step 1

The organization decides what continuing work will remain in the future structure. Continuing work refers to the duties and services that must still be delivered after change. The organization also determines what work will cease or be reduced, which functions are required in the future state, how many indeterminate positions are needed to deliver the remaining work, and what knowledge, skills, experience, and language requirements are genuinely tied to those duties. Decisions must be based on the actual work and service requirements rather than on tradition or past access to opportunities.

Information to gather before deciding

The organization is required to prepare a current snapshot of the affected area. This includes the number of indeterminate employees in scope, the mix of occupational groups and levels, where employees are located, and the language profile attached to positions. The snapshot must also include representation rates for women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities in the affected area.

The organization must also identify the comparison points needed to interpret that snapshot. These include the departmental representation baseline and Workforce Availability values for the relevant occupations and regions. Workforce Availability is a census‑based benchmark that estimates how many people from designated groups are available for work in specific occupations and regions. For proper interpretation, the organization must note the census year used and any definition changes that affect how designated groups are counted.

The organization is required to complete a skills gap analysis. This analysis identifies the skills required in the future state, the skills currently present, and the gaps between them. The analysis must cite the evidence for each required skill, such as program obligations, service standards, legislative requirements, or required systems. Every requirement, including both skill and language requirements, must be directly linked to the duties to ensure the requirements reflect the actual work and do not rely on who has historically had access to opportunity.

Equity considerations for Step 1

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

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 center 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

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

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

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

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.

Test each requirement for necessity and fairness

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

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

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.

Step 2: Determine the Affected Parts of the Organization

Step 2 defines the affected parts of the organization for the workforce adjustment and any SERLO. A SERLO is the Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off process used when some, but not all, positions in a defined unit are no longer required. The affected part is the specific work unit, section, division, directorate, program, region, or other clearly defined organizational unit included in scope. Step 2 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. The scope set at Step 2 establishes the boundary for fairness, comparability, and consistency, and it shapes how Workforce Adjustment obligations apply.

What happens in Step 2

The organization sets the scope for the SERLO by identifying which organizational units are affected, whether the scope is local, regional, or national, and which programs or types of work are included. The organization confirms that the scope reflects the work that is being discontinued, reduced, or transferred from Step 1, rather than reflecting who occupies positions. The organization ensures that similar work performed elsewhere is considered and either included or explicitly excluded with a clear reason. Step 2 produces a clear scope statement that can be understood and applied consistently.

Information to gather before deciding

The organization is required to define three elements of scope. First, the organizational unit boundary, which lists the affected sections, divisions, or directorates. Second, the geographic boundary, which specifies whether the scope applies locally, regionally, or nationally. Third, the work boundary, which identifies the program or the type of work performed in each affected part. The organization is required to prepare a short scope rationale that shows why the selected scope reflects the work being reduced, discontinued, or transferred, why it is not broader or narrower, how it aligns with the Step 1 future state, and how similar work in other units was checked and treated. The organization should prepare a simple map of the scope that names the included work units and provides a short description of the work performed in each unit. The organization is required to prepare a concise equity impact snapshot for the proposed scope. This snapshot compares representation in the proposed scope to the departmental baseline and to Workforce Availability for the relevant occupations and regions. Workforce Availability is a census‑based benchmark of how many people from designated groups are available for work by occupation and region. For interpretation, the organization should state the census year used and any definition changes that affect calculations. Where feasible, the organization should apply the Step 1 sensitivity view to check for data currency risks. The organization should also verify counts by group and level within the scoped work unit for Workforce Adjustment Directive considerations that may affect voluntary departure program requirements.

Equity considerations for Step 2

Set scope based on work, not on incumbents

Ensuring the scope boundary reflects the duties being reduced, discontinued, or transferred, not who occupies positions today.

Equity consideration: Write a work‑anchored scope statement that names the work being changed and cites the business evidence for the change. Confirm whether similar work exists in other units and either include it or document a clear reason for exclusion. This prevents scope lines that concentrate risk based on who is in the seats rather than what work is changing.

Apply the same scope logic to similar work

Ensuring consistent treatment across units that perform comparable duties.

Equity consideration: List where the same or closely similar work is performed. Apply the same scope rule to like work. If a difference is necessary, state the practical reason rooted in work and service needs. This avoids inconsistent inclusion or exclusion that can lead to unfair treatment.

Choose the correct geographic boundary

Aligning the scope with how the work is actually delivered across locations.

Equity consideration: If the work is delivered nationally or can be delivered from multiple locations, avoid using a narrow local boundary without a work‑based reason. Compare representation by region with Workforce Availability and, where feasible, a sensitivity view. If the proposed scope would remove more roles from higher representation regions, test distributed or mixed location options, or phase the change to reduce disproportionate impact.

Use Workforce Availability carefully and confirm alignment

Interpreting representation within the proposed scope with valid comparisons.

Equity consideration: Confirm that the occupation and region used for internal counts align with the Workforce Availability benchmark so like is compared with like. Name the census year used and note any definition changes to ensure results are interpreted correctly. Where feasible, add a current labour indication for the same occupation and region to form a sensitivity view. Compare representation against Workforce Availability and the sensitivity view. If representation only meets Workforce Availability but falls short against the sensitivity view, treat representation as at risk and test a broader or more consistent scope that does not concentrate adverse impacts.

Do not let scope design manipulate Workforce Adjustment thresholds

Ensuring scope decisions do not influence whether Workforce Adjustment provisions such as a voluntary departure program apply.

Equity consideration: Confirm that counts by group and level for the scoped unit are a result of the work boundary and not a driver of it. If a different boundary is chosen for operational reasons, record the work‑based rationale and confirm that employee access to Workforce Adjustment mechanisms is not diminished by design.

Check language obligations across the scoped area

Ensuring the scoped area can meet service and supervision obligations in both official languages.

Equity consideration: Validate that language requirements within the scoped area match the duties and service context and are not being used to narrow scope indirectly. Where higher profiles are necessary for service, identify development options or phased implementation to avoid creating barriers through the scope choice.

Consider accessibility and accommodations when drawing scope

Anticipating how scope lines interact with location, technology, and work model changes for employees who rely on accommodation.

Equity consideration: Identify whether the scoped area will change location expectations or platforms. Forecast barriers and plan adaptive tools, flexible arrangements, and phased transitions so scope does not create new barriers for accommodated employees.

Summarize representation impacts before finalizing scope

Providing a clear view of who is in scope and whether the scope concentrates risk.

Equity consideration: Prepare a short representation snapshot for the proposed scope and compare it to the departmental baseline and to Workforce Availability, with a sensitivity view where feasible. If risk is concentrated in the proposed scope, test a different, work‑faithful scope or add mitigations such as redistribution or phasing to reduce disproportionate impact.

Step 3: Identify the Positions and the Affected Employees

Step 3 identifies the specific positions and the indeterminate employees who form the SERLO pool. A SERLO pool is the group of employees at the same occupational group and level within the affected part who must be compared for retention or lay‑off. Step 3 translates the scope defined in Step 2 into a concrete list of positions and incumbents. It must align with the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Employment Regulations, the Workforce Adjustment Directive, the Public Service Commission’s guidance on Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off, and relevant equity and accessibility obligations. Errors in Step 3 compromise fairness and cannot be corrected later in the SERLO process.

What happens in Step 3

The organization identifies all positions at the same occupational group and level within each affected part. Similar duties are assessed to determine which positions belong in the same SERLO pool. The organization then identifies all indeterminate employees who substantively occupy those positions, including employees who are temporarily away on leave, assignment, secondment, or Interchange Canada. Only indeterminate employees who hold positions on a substantive basis are included. Term, casual, student, and temporary help workers are not part of the SERLO pool.

Information to gather before deciding

The organization is required to compile a list of all positions in the affected group and level, including position numbers, work locations, language profiles, reporting relationships, and whether positions are vacant or encumbered. For each position, the organization must identify the substantive incumbent and confirm whether the employee is present or on leave, acting elsewhere, on assignment, or participating in Interchange Canada. A comparison of duties must be completed to confirm which positions have similar duties and belong in the same SERLO pool. This analysis must rely on an objective comparison of duties rather than job titles alone. A record of all employees who must be included, including those on leave, must be prepared to ensure full and fair inclusion. The organization must ensure data accuracy regarding tenure, occupation, level, location, language profile, and substantive status.

Equity considerations for Step 3

Group positions using an objective analysis of duties

Ensuring that positions are grouped based on the actual work performed rather than job titles, organizational history, or assumptions.

Equity consideration: Compare core and unique duties using work descriptions, task inventories, and operational needs. Document the rationale for including or excluding each position from the pool. Check whether positions associated with particular work streams are disproportionately grouped or excluded and adjust grouping decisions to ensure they reflect real duties and do not isolate teams for non‑work reasons.

Include all substantive incumbents, including those on leave

Ensuring that all employees who hold positions substantively are treated consistently, regardless of temporary absence.

Equity consideration: Confirm that employees on parental, medical, disability, cultural, or other forms of leave are included in the SERLO pool. Provide timely and accessible communication to all employees on leave. Ensure contact methods accommodate individual needs and confirm that they have the same access to information and participation as employees who are present.

Verify position and employee data before defining the SERLO pool

Ensuring the accuracy of position and employee information used to build the SERLO pool.

Validate substantive positions, group and level, location, and language profile for each position. Confirm reporting structures and the accuracy of payroll and HR system data. Correct errors before finalizing the pool to prevent employees from being placed in the wrong pool or excluded improperly.

Treat acting employees and substantive employees correctly

Ensuring that acting assignments do not distort who is placed in the SERLO pool.

Equity consideration: Confirm that employees acting in other roles remain in the SERLO pool if their substantive position is in scope. Confirm that employees acting within the affected part are not treated as substantive incumbents. Ensure decision‑makers distinguish between temporary and substantive positions to avoid misplacing employees or creating unequal treatment.

Identify and correct occupational clustering effects

Understanding how employees are distributed across work streams within the affected part.

Equity consideration: Review whether employees in certain work streams are clustered within specific occupational groups or levels. If the SERLO pool is defined in a way that isolates one cluster without a clear work‑based reason, reassess grouping decisions to ensure they reflect the work and do not inadvertently concentrate risk.

Confirm that language and location information does not create hidden barriers

Ensuring that position attributes used for pool definition are accurate and relevant.

Equity consideration: Validate language profiles and location data to ensure they reflect real work requirements. Incorrect data may lead to exclusion from the pool, placement in the wrong pool, or misunderstanding of who performs similar work. Correct data issues before proceeding.

Summarize representation in each SERLO pool

Providing visibility into the demographic impact of the proposed pools before decisions advance.

Equity consideration: Calculate representation rates for each pool and compare them to Step 1 benchmarks, including Workforce Availability and the sensitivity view where feasible. If a pool shows disproportionate representation patterns, assess whether the grouping reflects true duty similarity or whether adjustments are needed to avoid a disproportionate impact.

---