720
edits
Important: The GCConnex decommission will not affect GCCollab or GCWiki. Thank you and happy collaborating!
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − ==='''Introduction'''===+ − − 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.+ − == 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. − + − 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. − + − A formal Step 1 Decision Record must be created and retained in the SERLO file.+ − + − + − + + − + − + − + − 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.+ − + − + − + − + − + − + − + + − + − + − + − '''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.+ − + + − == 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). − + − 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. − ---- − = STEP 2 — Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization =+ − + − 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. − + − + + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − 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.+ − + + − + − + − + + − == 4. What Can Go Wrong (Equity Risks) ==+ − − == 5. Mitigations (Specific, Operational, Auditable) ==+ − − + + − + − + − + + − == 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 =+ − + − 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. − + − '''Structural importance.''' Errors here distort the '''entire''' SERLO; flawed pool construction introduces inequity that later steps cannot fix.+ − + − '''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 ==+ − − '''Mandatory support.''' HR Staffing Advisor; Classification; HR Systems/Pay & Position Data; Labour Relations; Employment Equity; Accessibility.+ − == 4. Mandatory Documentation — Step 3 File Requirements ==+ − − + − + + − + − == 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. − + − '''Objective duty similarity test (HR Staffing + Delegated Manager).''' Compare duties, identify core functions and material differences, and document rationale.+ − + − '''Data validation control (HR Systems + Classification).''' Validate substantive incumbent, tenure, group/level, language, location, and reporting structure for each position.+ − + − + − '''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. − + − 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.+ − ---- − + + − == 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. − + + − == 2. Required Actors ==+ − − + − '''Executive‑specific support.''' TBS OCHRO Leadership Policies Division liaison.+ − + − '''A. TBS OCHRO.''' Notify in writing, in confidence, at least four working days before a public announcement, and early enough for oversight.+ − + + − + − == 4. Mandatory Documentation — Step 4 File Requirements ==+ − − + + − + − + − + − 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.+ − + − + − + − + − + + − + − + − + − For executives, notify the '''TBS OCHRO Leadership Policies Division''', issue notices under executive WFA directives, and keep separate documentation.+ − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − == 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.
Detailed Equity Considerations for SERLO / Considérations détaillées en matière d’équité pour le SERLO (view source)
Revision as of 16:03, 22 February 2026
, Yesterday at 16:03→Equity considerations by SERLO step (exhaustive; PSC wording)
.This evergreen guide was developed using various Workforce Availability (WFA) references and Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off (SERLO) guides from across the public service. It was drafted with the support of AI to improve clarity, consistency, and plain‑language readability, and it was reviewed and validated by employee network members to check for accuracy, accessibility, and equity considerations. The result is a practical resource that reflects current policy practices while centering fairness, transparency, and representativeness throughout all 14 SERLO steps.
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.
'''Workforce adjustment''' is a formal situation that occurs when a deputy head decides that the services of one or more permanent (indeterminate) employees will no longer be required beyond a specific date. This statement establishes the legal and organizational trigger for workforce adjustment and underscores that the decision relates to indeterminate employees and a defined date after which their services are no longer required. It calls for early planning, rigorous documentation, and consistent communication because employee rights, notice periods, and entitlements depend on that date.
This usually happens because of a lack of work, the discontinuance of a specific function, or an organizational restructuring that changes how a department delivers its mandate. This sentence identifies the common operational reasons that lead to workforce adjustment and makes clear that the cause must be tied to work-either its absence, its discontinuance, or its reconfiguration-rather than to individuals. Each reason should be supported by objective evidence (for example, workload data, changed priorities, or a new delivery model) to ensure decisions are defensible.
'''Selection of Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off (SERLO)''' is a structured methodology governed by the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). It is the core decision‑making method used during workforce adjustment and that it is anchored in statute, which requires adherence to legal standards, clear criteria, and procedural fairness at each stage.
Unlike a standard hiring process that seeks to identify the "best" candidate for a new role, a SERLO is designed to differentiate between qualified employees who already hold their substantive (permanent) positions. This highlights the key difference between competitive staffing and SERLO: rather than searching for a new external or internal hire, SERLO compares current indeterminate employees who already possess qualifications and experience, and it does so within the affected scope.
The goal is to determine, on the basis of merit, which employees will be retained to carry on the continuing work and which will be laid off, ensuring that these high‑stakes decisions are made with the highest degree of fairness, transparency, and representativeness. This clarifies the objective and the standard: merit is paramount; decisions must be evidence‑based; and outcomes must maintain transparency and support a representative public service. All documentation should therefore show how merit was assessed, how transparency was maintained, and how representativeness was safeguarded within the law.
==== 1. What This Step Is ====
== Phase I: Strategic Planning and Scope Identification ==
===== '''Determinations required before any assessment.''' =====
=== STEP 1: Determine the Desired Current and Future State of the Organization ===
In this foundational step, the Deputy Head establishes the operational basis for the workforce adjustment. This statement sets accountability for Step 1 and underscores that the entire SERLO process depends on a sound, well‑documented operational foundation, approved at the appropriate level of authority and aligned to mandate and program authorities.
The organization must determine what work will continue, what work will cease or be reduced, and the number of permanent positions required to perform the continuing work. This directs a complete inventory and decision on functions, volume, and capacity, supported by current and projected workloads, service standards, and legal or policy obligations. The number of indeterminate positions must be tied to continuing functions to ensure a clean and defensible mapping between work and required staffing.
This "Future State" definition includes identifying the specific knowledge, skills, experience, and official language requirements that will be necessary. This means the Future State must contain a clear list of essential qualifications tied to duties (knowledge, skills, experience) and a clear statement of official language profiles justified by the nature of work (service to the public, supervision, internal services), so later assessments directly reflect real operational requirements.
This step is functionally the most important because any error or bias in how the future work is defined will flow through the entire 14‑step process and cannot be fully corrected later. This requires heightened diligence now: use current evidence, apply equity and accessibility checks, and verify language requirements, because downstream stages (scope, pool formation, assessment, and selection) rely on the quality of Step 1.
==== '''The lag between Census data and current workforce reality''' ====
Official Workforce Availability (WFA) benchmarks are derived from national Census data, which is only collected every five years and published with significant delays. For rapidly changing demographic groups, such as members of visible minorities, these benchmarks often fail to capture the actual growth of qualified people in the current labor market.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Availability estimates can be materially outdated relative to present labour market conditions. When planning against only historical WFA, there is a risk of concluding that representation is adequate when the external labour market has evolved. In fast‑growing groups, this gap can be substantial and may misinform decisions about where reductions occur. If the organization relies solely on this lagging data during its initial analysis, it risks a state where the department looks representative on paper even though it is falling behind real‑world market realities. This creates a situation where reductions appear to meet Employment Equity goals but actually entrench underrepresentation relative to the current talent pool. Managers must document the Census year used and the time gap between that data and the current workforce numbers to ensure the analysis is grounded in reality.
'''Implementation detail:''' Always record the specific Census year and publication date alongside the current date and any more recent labour market indicators consulted (for example, Labour Force Survey). Include a brief note on how data lag may affect interpretation to ensure clarity for reviewers.
== 3. Mandatory Documentation — Step 1 Decision Record ==
==== '''Applying growth‑adjusted benchmarks for accurate modeling.''' ====
To address the data lag, managers should not rely exclusively on the official WFA numbers for their internal planning. Instead, they should apply a more accurate threshold using the following formula: Adjusted\ Availability = Official\ WFA + (Recent\ LFS\ proportion - Census\ proportion). This incorporates the most recent Labour Force Survey (LFS) trends to find a more realistic representation threshold.
'''3.1 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.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Calculating an adjusted availability aligns planning with more current labour market conditions while still acknowledging the official benchmark. The adjustment should be calculated transparently, with data sources, dates, and calculations documented and retained. By calculating an "Attainment Ratio" (Internal\ Representation \div Adjusted\ Availability), the department can identify if a unit is at risk of creating a new representation gap. If the ratio is above 1.0 against the old Census but below 1.0 against the adjusted benchmark, the organization should document this representation risk in the Step 1 Decision Record before proceeding with any layoffs. This ensures that the department does not accidentally reduce its workforce below the actual availability of the Canadian labor market.
'''3.2 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.
'''Implementation detail:''' Include attainment ratios both against the official WFA and against the adjusted availability. Where ratios disagree, note the variance and the potential equity impact, and consider mitigations (for example, scope choices, assessing organizational needs, or sequencing reductions).
'''3.3 Comparison benchmarks.''' Record the departmental representation baseline, official Workforce Availability (WFA) values, the census year used, and the definitions for each EE group.
==== '''Requirements based on historical access to high‑profile assignments.''' ====
When defining the Future State, there is a risk of defining required work around "prestige" assignments or high‑profile experience that has not been equally accessible to all employees. If future skills are based on factors like "acting at senior levels" or "executive briefing exposure," the process will naturally favor those who were historically given those opportunities through informal networks and sponsorship'''.'''
'''3.4 Skills‑gap analysis.''' Identify the future‑state skills required, the skills currently present, the gaps, and the evidence sources.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Requirements should be expressed in terms of what the job needs done, not the prestige of past opportunities. Screening for phrases that signal access rather than ability (for example, “central agency exposure”) helps avoid embedding historical privilege. Employment Equity groups often face systemic barriers to these specific types of high‑visibility roles. To ensure fairness, every continuing function must be justified by its actual operational necessity rather than its historical prestige. Managers should replace these historical access requirements with clear, competency‑based descriptions of the tasks, ensuring that merit is based on the ability to do the work rather than having had a specific "seat at the table."
'''3.5 Risk and mitigation record.''' Document representation impacts, availability‑sensitivity modelling, language‑profile justification, a barrier forecast, and signed approvals.
'''Implementation detail:''' For each essential qualification, include a plain description of the linked duty and the observable behaviour that evidences competence (for example, “prepares clear briefings for senior audiences” rather than “has briefed executives”).
== 4. Structural Risk of Workforce Availability Reliance ==
==== '''The concentration of diversity in urban work centers.''' ====
Restructuring often involves moving work from regional offices to urban centers. Diversity levels are not spread evenly across the country; for instance, representation for members of visible minorities is often significantly higher in major cities compared to rural regions.
'''4.1 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.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Location choices materially affect representation. Consolidating to or from urban centres should be modelled for demographic impact, so decision makers can see the representation consequences of each option. If the Future State involves closing an urban office without modeling the demographic impact, the organization may unintentionally eliminate a large portion of its diverse workforce. A "Geographic Representation Snapshot" must be completed to ensure that consolidation does not create a material under‑representation risk. and that the department maintains its commitment to a workforce that reflects the Canadian population it serves.
'''4.2 Compliance context.''' Under the Employment Equity Act, representation goals should reflect labour‑market availability; relying solely on outdated proxies risks distorted analysis.
'''Implementation detail:''' The snapshot should show current representation by site, projected representation after proposed changes, and differences from departmental baselines and adjusted availability. Summarize findings in the Step 1 Decision Record and note mitigation steps where risks are identified.
== 5. Required Workforce‑Availability Mitigation Controls ==
==== '''Linguistic requirements and the risk of rising language profiles.''' ====
'''5.1 Census currency disclosure.''' Record the census year, the time gap from the current workforce, any definitional changes, and denominator alignment (owned by HR Analytics).
Official language requirements must be set objectively based on the actual functions of the position, as required by the Official Languages Act. There is a risk that language profiles are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a hidden tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool.
'''5.2 Dual benchmark requirement.''' Compare internal representation to both official WFA and a growth‑adjusted sensitivity benchmark; record discrepancies.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Language profiles must be justified by the nature of work, such as direct service to the public, supervision, or internal service delivery in both official languages. Any proposed profile changes should reference concrete duties that require that level. Raising language requirements without a proven operational need acts as a structural filter that pushes out high‑performing employees who may not have been given equal access to language training. The Official Languages unit must provide written confirmation that any profile changes are justified by the work, ensuring language is used for service delivery and not as a shortcut for headcount management.
'''5.3 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.
'''Implementation detail:''' Attach the Official Languages written confirmation to the Step 1 file. Ensure the rationale is specific (for example, “regular, direct service to the public in both official languages at advanced complexity requires Level C reading/writing/oral”).
'''5.4 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.
==== '''Performing a prediction of future representation rates.''' ====
Before any positions are eliminated, the department should perform a review to predict the representation rates of the retained group. The formula used is: Projected\ Representation = (Current\ EE\ employees - Proposed\ reductions) \div Future\ total\ positions.
'''5.5 Future‑state projection.''' Project future representation and compare to both official and adjusted availability; if below either benchmark, consider mitigation.
'''Expanded guidance:''' This projection should be prepared for each affected unit and for the aggregate affected part. Assumptions should be stated (for example, which positions are proposed for elimination and the demographic composition of those positions). This projection allows the organization to see the "diversity outcome" of their business decisions before they are finalized. Where the projection falls below adjusted availability or departmental baselines, the manager must document why the reduction will not deepen existing gaps. This ensures structural awareness and prevents the unintentional erosion of progress in Employment Equity.
'''5.6 External growth differential.''' Exercise heightened caution when LFS availability exceeds WFA by 3–5 percentage points or more.
'''Implementation detail:''' If projections fall below adjusted availability or internal baselines, record the specific risk, the business constraint, and any mitigations (for example, reconsider scope, revisit essential qualifications to ensure fidelity to duties, or set an organizational need in Step 7 where appropriate and lawful).
== 6. Equity Risk Areas at Step 1 ==
=== STEP 2: Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization ===
Step 2 defines the "scope boundary"-the specific organizational unit (section, division, or directorate) and the geographic area (local, regional, or national) where the workforce adjustment will occur. This clarifies that both organizational and geographic dimensions must be set and that they determine who is considered “in scope” for the SERLO pool.
These boundaries are the most important factor in determining who is placed "at risk" and who is kept "safe." This underscores the effect of scope on people. Therefore, the rationale must be explicit, consistent, and based on work, not individuals.
The scope must be defined strictly by the work being reduced or discontinued, rather than the specific individuals currently performing that work. This requirement protects fairness and legality. To meet it, map functions and duties first, then map positions and incumbents to those functions.
'''6.4 Official‑language profile escalation.''' Validate language requirements against actual duties with Official Languages.
==== '''Drawing scope boundaries too tightly around diverse teams.''' ====
A significant equity risk occurs when scope boundaries are drawn too tightly around a specific team that happens to be very diverse, while safe‑guarding other units that perform substantially similar work. This "unit isolation" can make a layoff look like a neutral operational decision when it is actually targeting a specific group of employees.
'''Expanded guidance:''' To prevent “unit isolation,” conduct an objective comparison of duties across units that perform similar work, regardless of organizational labels or reporting lines. To prevent this, the department must conduct a "Similar Work Test." This involves formally verifying if comparable duties are performed in other parts of the organization. If similar work exists elsewhere but is excluded from the adjustment scope, the manager must provide a written rationale in the Scope Determination Record explaining the business reason for the exclusion.
'''Implementation detail:''' The Similar Work Test should list the core duties, the percentage of time for each duty, where those duties appear elsewhere, and a clear business reason for any exclusion (for example, work is continuing in that unit due to legislative requirement).
== 9. Required Sign‑Off Before Proceeding to Step 2 ==
==== '''The impact of geographic boundaries on regional diversity.''' ====
Choosing between a local, regional, or national scope has massive consequences for fairness. For example, if a department uses a local scope for a reduction in a diverse urban center, it may result in more layoffs for racialized employees compared to using a broader national scope that includes less diverse regions.
'''Expanded guidance''': Select a geographic boundary that accurately reflects how work is delivered and that does not concentrate risk on a single location with a materially different demographic composition. Managers must document why a specific geographic boundary was selected. If a national scope is used, the department must ensure that employees in all regions have consistent and equal access to information, union representation, and support services to ensure that distance does not become a barrier to procedural fairness.
'''Implementation detail:''' Record the rationale for boundary selection in the Scope Determination Record and describe the measures used to provide equal access across regions (for example, simultaneous e‑mail notices, virtual town halls, bilingual Q\&A sessions).
== Legislative and Policy Basis ==
==== '''Manipulating boundaries to avoid legal program triggers.''' ====
There is a risk that scope boundaries are drawn specifically to manipulate the "counts" of affected employees to avoid legal obligations. For instance, splitting a single team into two separate units might keep the number of affected employees below the "5 or more" threshold that triggers a mandatory Voluntary Departure Program (VDP).
'''Expanded guidance:''' The design of scope must never be used to reduce or avoid employee rights. Labour Relations and HR should review scope for integrity and confirm that counts reflect the true affected part. Labour Relations and HR must affirm that scope decisions are not being used to circumvent the rights of employees under the Workforce Adjustment Directive. The "Scope Determination Record" should include an accurate count of all affected indeterminate employees by group and level to ensure that all negotiated protections are triggered appropriately.
'''1.1 Purpose.''' The scope ensures like‑with‑like comparisons and access to consistent supports.
'''Implementation detail:''' Include the counts, data sources, and date of extraction. If a VDP threshold is met, record that fact and list the next steps to comply.
'''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.
==== '''The need for a representation check before finalizing scope.''' ====
Before the scope is finalized, the HR Analytics team should produce a "Snapshot" of representation for the proposed affected area. This snapshot should be compared against the departmental baseline and the sensitivity benchmarks established in Step 1.
'''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.
'''Expanded guidance''': The Snapshot should show representation by Employment Equity (EE) category, total counts, percentages, and comparisons to both departmental baselines and adjusted availability used in Step 1, so changes in scope can be tested for fairness effects. If the proposed scope concentrates risk in a unit with significantly higher representation than the rest of the department, this concentration must be flagged. The manager should then review the scope to ensure that the definition of the affected part is truly based on the discontinuance of a function and not on an arbitrary boundary that produces an inequitable outcome.
'''1.4 Equity importance.''' Defining scope too narrowly, inconsistently, or around incumbents rather than work produces avoidable inequity and may disproportionately affect EE groups.
'''Implementation detail:''' Where concentration exists, document whether the scope can be expanded or adjusted to align to the function rather than the particular team, and record the decision and rationale.
== 2. Who Completes This Step ==
==== '''Ensuring scope reflects the actual discontinuance of functions.''' ====
'''Accountable decision‑maker.''' Delegated Manager (with delegated staffing authority).
Scope must be anchored in the "Future State" rationale from Step 1. If the scope includes functions that are actually continuing elsewhere in the department, the organization is vulnerable to legal challenges regarding the legitimacy of the layoff.
'''Required support.''' HR Specialist (WFA, staffing, classification, documentation).
'''Expanded guidance:''' Cross‑check each function included in scope against the Future State inventory of discontinued, reduced, or continuing work. Where continuing work is identified, either remove it from scope or document a valid operational reason that aligns with the Future State. This is especially important for Employment Equity groups who may be performing specialized outreach or community‑based work. If these functions are unique, they must be defended based on their operational output rather than the incumbents' identities. The Step 2 file must include a "Work‑Based Scope Test" to prove the boundary is legitimate.
'''Mandatory equity/compliance engagement.''' Employment Equity/IDEAA/Anti‑Racism, HR Analytics, Accessibility/Duty to Accommodate, Official Languages, Labour Relations, Corporate Planning/Finance, and Classification.
'''Implementation detail:''' The Work‑Based Scope Test should map functions to authorities, outputs, service standards, and dependencies, and should demonstrate that the scope follows the function, not the people.
== 3. Mandatory Outputs and Documentation ==
=== STEP 3: Identify the Positions and the Affected Employees ===
This step moves from the abstract "affected part" to a specific list of position numbers and the names of the indeterminate employees who occupy them. This makes the SERLO process concrete and ensures that all substantive incumbents of in‑scope positions are identified.
This creates the "SERLO Pool" - the group of employees who will be compared against each other for retention based on merit. The pool must be built from HR system data, validated for accuracy, and accompanied by the records described below to ensure inclusion, fairness, and integrity.
'''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.
==== '''The risk of excluding employees on various types of leave.''' ====
Systemic bias often occurs when employees on parental leave, medical leave, disability leave, or Indigenous cultural leave are accidentally left off the pool list. Under the law, these employees must be included if they substantively own a position in the affected unit, even if they are not currently at their desks.
'''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.
'''Expanded guidance''': Build and maintain an Inclusion Log for employees on leave, verify contact details, and ensure equal access to notices, timelines, and accommodations. A separate "Inclusion Log" must be maintained to track these individuals. The department must ensure they receive all notifications and have the same opportunity to participate in assessments as their active colleagues. Failing to include them is a major procedural error and violates the employer's duty to respect human rights.
'''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.
'''Implementation detail:''' Use confirmed delivery for notifications to employees on leave; provide accessible channels for questions; and record accommodations promptly and confidentially.
'''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.
==== '''Differentiating between substantive status and acting roles.''' ====
A common error in pool identification is treating "acting" employees (those temporarily filling a higher role) as permanent members of that higher‑level unit. Conversely, your own permanent employee who is acting elsewhere still "owns" their seat in your pool and must be included in the assessment for retention.
'''Expanded guidance''': Run a substantive status audit against HR systems. Ensure the pool contains only substantive incumbents of in‑scope positions and includes substantive incumbents who are temporarily away. Managers must perform an audit with HR systems to ensure every person in the pool is there on a "substantive" basis. Including acting employees in the wrong pool or excluding permanent employees who are away on assignment leads to unfair comparisons and successful staffing complaints under the PSEA.
'''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.
'''Implementation detail:''' Record the audit date, source system, corrections made, and who validated them.
'''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.
==== '''Using core tasks rather than job titles to group employees.''' ====
Managers often group employees based solely on their job titles, but titles can be misleading. Two people with the same title might do completely different work, or people with different titles might perform substantially similar duties. Grouping by title alone can unfairly isolate diverse employees into "pools of one" where they have no chance to compete for retention.
'''Geographic boundary fairness controls.''' Show why broader scope is not appropriate, check regional distribution, forecast participation/access barriers, and plan for consistent access.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Create a Duty Similarity Matrix listing top duties and time allocation for each position. Where roles share approximately 80% or more of core duties, pool them together regardless of title. To ensure fairness, the department should use a "Duty Similarity Matrix" to compare actual core tasks across positions. If employees are performing 80% or more of the same duties, they should be in the same pool regardless of their title.
'''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.
'''Implementation detail:''' Keep the matrix with the SERLO file and reference it in the pool formation note.
'''Approval and governance sign‑off.''' Obtain written confirmations from HR, EE, Accessibility, and LR.
==== '''Addressing the clustering of groups in specific job levels.''' ====
Employment Equity groups may be concentrated in certain job levels or "streams" due to historical hiring patterns. If grouping is inconsistent across units, this clustering can lead to a disproportionate impact on those groups.
'''Expanded guidance:''' After pools are formed, calculate basic representation for each pool and compare to Step 1 projections. This check is for awareness and fairness, not for quotas. For each pool identified, managers should calculate representation rates and compare them to Step 1 projections. This does not mean quotas are used; it means that the manager is aware of the demographic makeup of the pool and can ensure the process is free from "structural sorting" that targets specific levels where diversity is highest.
'''Implementation detail:''' Where disproportionate impact appears tied to grouping choices, review whether pooling by duty similarity can be improved.
== Legislative and Policy Framework ==
==== '''Data validation to ensure accurate language and location records.''' ====
Incorrect data regarding an employee's language profile or geographic location can result in them being placed in the wrong pool or excluded improperly. This is a critical risk for employees in regional offices or those whose language profiles were recently updated.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Complete a Position Data Audit to verify tenure, location, and language for each person in the pool, correcting the source system where needed. A "Position Data Audit" must be completed by HR Systems and Classification to verify the tenure, language, and location of every employee in the pool. Documentation of this audit must be preserved in the SERLO file to prove that the pool was constructed with high data integrity.
'''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.
'''Implementation detail:''' Note the specific corrections made, with dates, and retain a signed audit confirmation.
== Phase II: Notifications and Preliminary Structural Activities ==
== 2. What Must Be Identified ==
=== STEP 4: Notify TBS OCHRO, Bargaining Agents, and Employees ===
Step 4 is the formal notification phase. This clarifies that all parties must be advised that workforce adjustment activities are underway, prior to assessments.
The organization must notify TBS‑OCHRO confidentially at the earliest possible date and not less than four working days before any announcement likely to involve a specified number of employees. Notify national heads of the bargaining agents before notifying employees, then notify employees. This is not a layoff notice; it is an organizational announcement intended to ensure transparency before any assessments begin. The package should clearly explain the purpose of the notice, the steps to come, the supports available, and points of contact in both official languages.
'''The requirement for simultaneous notification to all employees.'''
'''Accountable.''' Delegated Manager.
Information is power during a workforce adjustment. If some employees hear the news earlier than others, they have more time to consult their unions or prepare for the stress of the process. This is especially true for Employment Equity groups who may have smaller informal professional networks.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Use a Single Release Protocol to send all notices at the same time. Include confirmed delivery to employees on leave so no one is disadvantaged by timing. The organization should use a "Single Release Protocol" where all notices are sent at the exact same moment. For employees on leave, notices should be sent via confirmed delivery to ensure that no one is left behind while their colleagues are beginning to make career‑defining decisions.
'''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).
'''Implementation detail:''' Record the date and time of issuance, recipient lists, and confirmation records.
'''C. Employee inclusion log.''' For each indeterminate employee, record name, substantive position number, current status, confirmation of inclusion, and notification details (date/method).
==== '''Ensuring communication materials are accessible by design.''' ====
Provide letters and instructions in accessible formats and plain language. Ensure web or intranet postings meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Follow TBS ‘Guidelines on Making Communications Products and Activities Accessible. Refrain from using PDFs or emails that may not be screen‑reader compatible or available in alternate formats like large print. Under the Accessible Canada Act, the department has a legal obligation to ensure that SERLO communications are accessible to all.
'''D. On‑leave inclusion log.''' Track employees on leave, type of leave, confirmation of contact, and confirmation that accommodations and access were provided.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Prepare communications in accessible formats (for example, accessible Word or HTML) with plain language, clear headings, and simple navigation. Offer alternate formats upon request. The Accessibility function should review the notification package before it is released. This includes ensuring that the instructions for requesting help or seeking union advice are clear, unambiguous, and easy to find for everyone, regardless of their physical or cognitive abilities.
'''Implementation detail:''' Include contact information for accessibility, unions, HR, and mental‑health supports in both official languages.
== 6. Mandatory and Control‑Based Mitigations ==
=== STEP 5: Conduct Required Classification and Staffing Activities ===
This step ensures that all job descriptions and language profiles are accurate and up‑to‑date. If the work has changed as part of the restructuring, the permanent (substantive) positions must be re‑evaluated to reflect the current duties before any assessment of employees occurs. This prevents employees from being measured against outdated or requirements linked to access to high‑visibility work rather than job needs and ensures assessments are aligned with actual work.
'''Cross‑unit similar work check (HR Staffing).''' Confirm whether similar work exists elsewhere and record the inclusion/exclusion rationale.
'''Removing requirements based on historical prestige.'''
Inequity is often hidden in the "fine print" of job descriptions. Requirements like "experience briefing senior executives" or "central agency exposure" are often markers of past privilege rather than actual technical skills. These markers reflect who has had access to high‑profile projects in the past.
'''Leave equity control (HR Advisor + Accessibility).''' Ensure inclusion, timely communication, and accessible process for all employees on leave.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Replace requirements linked to access to high‑visibility work rather than job needs with competency‑based statements tied to duties and observable behaviours, expressed in plain language. Employment Equity groups have historically faced more barriers to these types of high‑visibility opportunities. To ensure a fair pool, the department should screen descriptions to replace these historical access markers with competency‑based language, such as "Ability to communicate complex data to senior decision‑makers."
'''Representation pool snapshot (HR Analytics + EE).''' Calculate representation rates, compare with Step 1 projections and WFA/sensitivity benchmarks, and document any disproportionate impact.
'''Implementation detail:''' Verify that each essential qualification maps to a specific Future State duty and the method that will assess it.
==== Protecting language objectivity from being used to manage numbers. ====
There is a risk that language requirements are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool. Raising requirements without an operational need acts as a structural barrier that unfairly targets certain groups.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Ensure that any change to a language profile is supported by a written operational justification from Official Languages. The Official Languages unit must provide a written justification proving that the language level is an absolute requirement for the work in the Future State. This ensures that language profiles are used to support service and not as a tool for workforce reduction.
'''Implementation detail:''' Attach this justification to the Step 5 record and ensure consistency with Step 1.
== 9. Structural Importance of Step 3 ==
=== STEP 6: Establish a Voluntary Departure Program (VDP), Where Required ===
If five or more indeterminate employees at the same group and level in the same unit are affected and no GRJO is assured, establish a VDP before SERLO. Provide at least 30 days for volunteers to decide. It allows employees to choose to leave with a package before any involuntary layoffs are decided. Program parameters should be communicated clearly, with timelines, eligibility, benefits, and points of contact.
= STEP 4 — Notify TBS OCHRO, Bargaining Agents, and Employees =
==== '''Ensuring the program remains truly voluntary and free of pressure.''' ====
A major risk at this stage is that managers might "hint" to certain employees that they should take the package because they are "unlikely to be retained" in the upcoming assessment. This informal signaling is unethical and undermines the voluntariness of the program.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Issue a written directive prohibiting discussions about an individual’s likelihood of retention during the VDP window, and provide a channel for employees to report concerns confidentially. Management must issue a written directive prohibiting any discussions about an individual's likelihood of retention during the VDP window. This ensures that every employee’s decision to stay or leave is based on their own personal circumstances, rather than a perceived threat.
'''Implementation detail:''' Retain the directive with the VDP file and remind managers in writing.
'''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.
==== '''Analyzing patterns of departure to identify potential bias concerns.''' ====
Diverse employees may choose to leave the public service at higher rates during a VDP if they fear the upcoming SERLO assessment will be biased against them. If high numbers of a specific group volunteer to leave, it may be a sign of a lack of trust in the fairness of the department's processes.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Monitor uptake patterns at an aggregate level and investigate drivers of disproportionate participation. The HR Analytics and Employment Equity units should monitor "uptake patterns" by demographic group. If a specific group is volunteering disproportionately, the department should investigate the drivers behind these departures to ensure the remaining process is viewed as fair.
'''Accountable.''' Delegated Manager.
'''Mandatory support.''' Labour Relations; HR WFA Advisor; HR Staffing Advisor; Corporate Communications; Employment Equity; Accessibility; Official Languages.
'''Implementation detail:''' Where patterns are observed, consider additional communication, Q\&A sessions, or process clarifications to build trust.
== Phase III: Assessment Design and Legal Safeguards ==
== 3. Mandatory Notifications ==
=== STEP 7: Determine the Qualifications, Requirements, and Organizational Needs ===
Step 7 sets the "Merit Criteria"-the list of skills, knowledge, and needs that will be used to decide who stays. These factors form the legal basis for all assessments and retention decisions under the Public Service Employment Regulations (PSER). Criteria must be directly tied to duties and expressed in clear, objective terms.
'''B. Bargaining agents.''' Notify as soon as possible, provide names and work locations of affected employees, and maintain ongoing consultation.
==== '''The use of clear and objective criteria to prevent bias.''' ====
Criteria like "leadership potential" or "cultural fit" are highly subjective and allow personal bias to influence the results. To ensure a fair process, every qualification must be directly linked to a specific duty in the "Future State."
'''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).
'''Expanded guidance:''' Create a Criteria Justification Table that lists each essential and asset qualification, the duty it supports, and the observable evidence that shows it is met. Remove vague or subjective terms. The department should use a "Criteria Justification Table" to record the rationale for every factor. If a manager cannot prove that a skill is required for a daily task, it should be removed. This ensures the test measures actual merit and competence rather than a manager's personal preference.
'''Implementation detail:''' Align criteria with Step 5 job descriptions and planned Step 8 assessment methods.
'''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.
==== '''Legally establishing diversity as an organizational need.''' ====
Under the PSER, "belonging to an equity group" can be established as a formal "Organizational Need" if a representation gap was identified in the Step 1 analysis. This is a legitimate tool to ensure that workforce adjustment does not wipe out years of progress in diversity.
'''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.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Where Step 1 analysis shows a gap, define an organizational need with a data‑based rationale and clear rules for consistent application among candidates who meet essentials. Using diversity as an organizational need must be supported by data and documented in the criteria record. This ensures that the department meets its statutory obligations under the Employment Equity Act while remaining transparent about how these needs will be factored into the final retention decisions.
'''D. Distribution log.''' Each employee notified, date/method, separate list for employees on leave, and confirmation that alternate formats were available.
'''Implementation detail:''' Document the need, the supporting data and dates, and the application method in the Step 7 record.
== 5. Equity Risks at Step 4 ==
=== STEP 8: Determine the Assessment Methods ===
This step decides how employees will be measured (for example, an interview, a written exam, or a work sample). This plan must be fully designed and approved before any testing activity begins to ensure consistency. The plan should list methods, weights, cut‑scores, rubrics, and accommodations pathways.
== 6. Mandatory and Control‑Based Mitigations ==
==== '''Using a single, consistent assessment plan for the whole pool.''' ====
'''Single release protocol (HR Staffing + LR).''' Send all notifications simultaneously; use confirmed delivery for employees on leave; timestamp releases.
For a SERLO to be fair, every employee in the pool must be graded using the exact same methods and tools. You cannot give one person an interview and another person a written test.
'''Leave inclusion outreach (HR Advisor).''' Maintain a complete leave list, confirm preferred contact methods, document outreach/confirmations, and ensure access to union/WFA resources.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Establish a single Master Assessment Plan and apply it to everyone in the pool without exception. Mid‑process changes are not permitted unless there is a documented, lawful reason that applies to the entire pool. Managers must stick to one "Master Assessment Plan" for the entire pool. Any changes made to the methods midway through the process can be seen as "engineering" the results for a specific individual and will likely lead to successful staffing complaints.
'''Accessibility & OL compliance (Accessibility + OL).''' Ensure bilingual notices, accessible formats, and clear accommodation contacts.
'''Implementation detail:''' Approve the plan before use; record version control; and communicate it consistently to assessors.
'''Consultation documentation control (LR).''' Record that consultation occurred, information was provided, and questions were addressed.
==== '''The requirement for assessor training and calibration sessions.''' ====
If multiple people are grading the assessments, there is a risk of "evaluator drift," where one manager is a "tough grader" and another is "easy." This creates an unfair advantage.
'''WFA rights information control (HR WFA).''' Include WFA options, voluntary departure (if applicable), alternation process, and recourse mechanisms.
'''Expanded guidance''': Conduct training and calibration to agree on what different score levels look like, using sample responses and scoring anchors. The department must hold calibration sessions before grading starts. Graders should review the scoring rubrics together and agree on what a "good" answer looks like. This ensures that every employee is graded against a single departmental standard, rather than an individual assessor's opinion.
'''Representation monitoring (EE + HR Analytics).''' Review representation patterns post‑notification, flag disproportionate impacts, and brief the delegated manager.
'''Implementation detail:''' Keep calibration notes and examples, and run spot checks on inter‑rater consistency.
== 7. Executive‑Specific Requirements ==
=== STEP 9: Identify, Remove or Mitigate Biases and Barriers ===
Under PSER s.22(5), managers are legally required to evaluate their assessment methods and how they will be applied to identify and remove barriers that disadvantage Employment Equity groups. This must be done before the assessments occur. A written record should be prepared for each method.
== 8. Governance Sign‑Off Before Proceeding to Step 5 ==
==== '''Proactively searching for barriers in specific test methods.''' ====
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.
Managers often try to satisfy this legal rule with a generic statement like "we checked for bias and found none." This is insufficient. The law requires a specific, method‑by‑method analysis.
'''Expanded guidance:''' For each assessment, list potential barriers and the mitigation (for example, extra time, accessible formats, plain‑language instructions, equivalent oral or written alternatives). For example, a timed written exam can be a barrier for an employee with a learning disability or an employee whose first language is not the test language. The "Bias and Barrier Evaluation Record" must document each identified risk and the specific action taken to fix it (such as providing extra time or alternate formats).
'''Implementation detail:''' Publish the accommodation request process and timelines in the Step 10 letters and confirm approved measures in writing.
=== STEP 10: Inform Employees in Writing ===
Every employee in the SERLO pool must receive a formal letter listing the qualifications being tested, the assessment methods that will be used, timelines, and how to request an accommodation through the process. Letters should be accessible, bilingual, and free of jargon.
==== '''The "no surprises" principle in notifying employees.''' ====
A major equity gap occurs when employees are graded on "hidden" expectations that were not listed in the notification letter.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Letters must mirror Step 7 criteria and Step 8 methods exactly. No additions or changes are permitted after notice is issued, unless applied to all and re‑communicated. The letter must match the Step 7 criteria exactly, and no informal additions are permitted. Furthermore, employees must be given a reasonable "preparation window" so that those with family responsibilities or accessibility needs have the same opportunity to succeed as everyone else.
'''Implementation detail:''' Include clear contacts for accommodations and union support, specify timelines, and retain delivery confirmations.
== Phase IV: Assessment Implementation and Selection ==
=== STEP 11: Assess Employees Against the Established Factors ===
This is the actual "testing" phase where scores are recorded based on the plan from Step 8. Results must be documented in evidence‑based records for every person in the pool. The assessment environment should be consistent, accessible, and free from avoidable distractions.
==== '''Using independent scoring to prevent dominant opinions.''' ====
To avoid the "Halo Effect"-where one influential assessor’s opinion sways the entire panel-each grader must write their scores down privately before they talk as a group.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Preserve original, independent scores for each assessor and each criterion, then hold a panel discussion to reconcile differences if needed. These initial scores must be kept in the file. If a score is changed after the group discussion, the manager must write down a clear factual reason for the adjustment. This protects against a dominant personality on the panel from unfairly favoring or disadvantaging certain employees.
'''Implementation detail:''' Use a simple “score‑change rationale” note that cites specific evidence from the assessment.
==== '''The requirement for evidence‑based factual notes.''' ====
Notes should focus on what the employee specifically said or did during the test, rather than the manager's subjective impressions. Managers should avoid using terms like "seemed weak" or "not a team player."
'''Expanded guidance:''' Notes should cite observable facts mapped to the rubric (for example, number of examples, accuracy, completeness, clarity). Instead, notes should read: "Employee provided three examples of managing budgets" or "Employee correctly identified the risk in Scenario A." This makes the process objective and ensures that decisions can be defended with facts.
'''Implementation detail:''' Store notes with the scoring sheets and ensure legibility and completeness.
=== STEP 12: Select Employees for Retention or Lay‑Off ===
The delegated manager reviews all assessment results and applies the selection rules. This is the formal decision point governed by PSER s.22(8). The selection matrix should show essentials met, total scores, and the application of organizational needs where applicable.
==== '''Preference for maintaining representation levels through organizational needs.''' ====
Unlike standard tie‑breakers, the selection stage is used to ensure that the workforce remains representative. If an organizational need for Employment Equity was established in Step 7, the manager must apply this preference to retain members of those groups to prevent the adjustment from deepening underrepresentation.
'''Expanded guidance:''' Apply organizational needs only among employees who met all essential qualifications and do so consistently across the pool. Document the application clearly. This mechanism is a primary tool for meeting the department's obligations under the Employment Equity Act. The file must show that this preference was applied consistently across the pool to protect the diversity gains of the organization during the restructuring.
'''Implementation detail:''' Include a clear column in the selection matrix indicating where an organizational need applied and the rationale.
==== '''Ensuring the baseline of essential qualifications is met.''' ====
Merit is the first principle of the SERLO. Employees who do not meet even one "Essential Qualification" - including official language proficiency-cannot be retained under the law.
'''Expanded guidance''': Verify essentials before any organizational need is considered. If an essential is not met, the individual cannot be retained through the SERLO outcome. The manager must verify that every person selected for retention has successfully demonstrated all essential factors. Applying equity preferences can only happen among employees who have met this fundamental merit baseline, ensuring a competent and diverse continuing workforce.
'''Implementation detail:''' Keep evidence of essential‑qualification verification with the selection record.
=== STEP 13: Provide Written Notice of Lay‑Off or Retention ===
Formal letters are issued to all participants. Lay‑off notices must contain Include at least: the lay‑off decision under PSEA s.64; the assessed factors under PSER s.22(2) and how they led to selection; the effective date; available WFA supports; and the right to complain to the FPSLREB under PSEA s.65, including timelines and how to file. Retention letters should confirm continuation in the position and any next steps.
==== '''Transparency through the 5‑point mandatory notice content.''' ====
Vague reasons in a layoff letter, such as "other candidates were stronger overall," are not legally sufficient. The employee has a right to know exactly which qualification or organizational need led to their selection for layoff.
'''Expanded guidance''': Provide clear, evidence‑linked reasons tied to the criteria and selection logic. Use plain language and offer contacts for questions and supports. Providing clear, evidence‑linked reasons ensures that employees know they were treated fairly and helps them decide whether they have grounds for a complaint under the PSEA. This step is critical for maintaining employee trust during a highly stressful transition.
'''Implementation detail:''' Retain delivery confirmations and offer meetings with HR/Labour Relations/union representatives on request.
=== STEP 14: Record the Reasons for Selection or Lay‑Off ===
The process closes with the creation of the final institutional record for every single employee in the pool. This record explains exactly why each person was kept or let go. It should be complete, consistent, and organized for review.
==== '''Ensuring the decision path is traceable for external review.''' ====
An external reviewer should be able to pick up the file and trace every step from the "Future State" in Step 1 to the final layoff in Step 13 without having to guess at the manager's intent. Expanded guidance: The Individual Reasons Record must cite the relevant documents from Steps 1 through 13, link to assessment evidence and scores, and show the selection logic applied. The "Individual Reasons Record" must map each decision directly to the assessment scores and the selection logic. This "paper trail" is the department's primary defense against claims of bias and ensures the organization remains accountable for its treatment of employees.
'''Implementation detail:''' Use a file completeness checklist and conduct a peer review of a sample of files for consistency.
=== Equity considerations by SERLO step (exhaustive; PSC wording) ===
{| class="wikitable"
!'''PSC Step'''
!'''Equity considerations (each bullet on a new line with an inline link and immediate citation)'''
|-
!'''Step 1: Determine the desired current and future state of the organization'''
|• Explain in plain language how the future state is tied to program authorities, service standards, risks and outputs (not people), and keep the write‑up in your file as PSC expects in its step‑by‑step guide: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Selection of employees for retention or lay‑off: Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Complete a workforce analysis that shows current Employment Equity (EE) representation for the affected work and note where the future design could reduce representativeness, as set out in the PSC’s planning expectations under this step: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Identify official language profiles objectively (service to public, supervision, language of work) using the TBS Directive on Official Languages for People Management and the Commissioner’s guidance on language requirements of positions.
• Prepare a '''Projected Representation worksheet''' for each unit (current EE counts → minus proposed reductions → divided by future positions) and compare results against departmental baselines and official WFA benchmarks; save the worksheet with your Step 1 records following PSC’s documentation expectations here: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Note any foreseeable accessibility or accommodation impacts of the future state (for example, more written deliverables, more in‑person tasks) and plan mitigations in later steps; use TBS’s Guidelines on Making Communications Products and Activities Accessible to frame accessible‑by‑design expectations.
|-
!'''Step 2: Determine the affected part(s) of the organization'''
|• Set organizational and geographic boundaries that follow the work (functions), not people, and record the scope rationale in your file as described in the PSC’s step for defining the affected part(s): [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Run a “Similar Work Test” (list core duties/time, where else they occur) so units with comparable work are treated consistently; place the test in the Step 2 file in line with the PSC’s scoping guidance: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Check whether a local‑only scope concentrates impacts on highly diverse offices and document why a local, regional, or national boundary is fair for service delivery, as PSC says to do under this step: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
|-
!'''Step 3: Identify the positions and affected employees'''
|• Build the pool using '''substantive positions''' and include indeterminate incumbents on leave, assignment, secondment, or acting elsewhere (exclude terms) exactly as PSC sets out under Step 3: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Group by '''actual duties''' (not job titles alone) to avoid isolating diverse employees into very small pools; PSC explains how to do this under Step 3 here: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Audit tenure, location and language‑profile data and correct the HR source system so no one is excluded because of stale or incorrect data, consistent with PSC’s Step 3 integrity checks: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
|-
!'''Step 4: Notification to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat – Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, bargaining agents, and employees'''
|• Follow the PSC sequence to ensure equal access to information: notify '''TBS‑OCHRO''' in confidence '''at least four working days''' before announcement, notify '''bargaining agents''', then notify '''employees''' as outlined under Step 4: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Send simultaneous notices (including to employees on leave) and provide plain‑language, accessible formats (for example, accessible Word/HTML and WCAG‑conformant pages) using TBS’s Guidelines on Making Communications Products and Activities Accessible.
|-
!'''Step 5: Conduct classification and staffing activities'''
|• Update work descriptions so they reflect future duties and '''remove access‑based criteria''' (for example, “briefed executives”) that may reflect privilege rather than job needs, per PSC’s Step 5 practice: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Identify language profiles with an '''objective analysis''' tied to duties (public service, supervision, language of work) using the TBS Directive on Official Languages for People Management and the Commissioner’s [https://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/en/language-rights/language-rights-federal-public-service/language-requirements-positions language requirements of positions], and keep the analysis in file.
|-
!'''Step 6: Establish a voluntary departure program'''
|• If applicable (for example, five or more affected indeterminate employees at same group/level with no GRJO), run the '''VDP before SERLO''' and keep the parameters and selection rules in file as standard practice noted by PSC context and union guidance: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Give employees '''at least 30 days''' to decide and monitor uptake in the aggregate for disproportionate participation by any EE group.
• Issue a written “no‑pressure” directive to managers to prevent informal steering, consistent with fair program administration described in PSC’s Step 6 context: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
|-
!'''Step 7: Determine the qualifications, requirements, and needs'''
|• Build a '''Criteria Justification Table''' showing each essential/asset qualification, the linked duty, and observable evidence, in line with PSER s.22(2) factors and PSC Step 7 expectations: [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html PSER, s.22] and [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Remove subjective terms (for example “fit,” “leadership potential”) and specify '''observable''' evidence, as PSC advises under Step 7: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists.]
[https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html •] If setting '''organizational needs''' (for representativeness), ground them in evidence and apply '''only among employees who met all essentials''', consistent with the merit framework under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.01/ PSEA, s.30(2)(b)–(3)].
|-
!'''Step 8: Determine the assessment methods'''
|• Approve '''one Master Assessment Plan''' (same methods/weights/cut scores/rubrics for the whole pool) and plan calibration/training as PSC advises under Step 8: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists.]
• Build accommodation pathways (formats, time adjustments, equivalent alternatives) directly into the plan and communicate them in plain language, per PSC’s Step 8 approach: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists.]
|-
!'''Step 9: Identification of biases and barriers'''
|• Complete the '''bias‑and‑barrier evaluation before using any assessment method''' and keep the record in the file as legally required under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html PSER, s.22(5)].
• Use the PSC’s [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide to Mitigating Biases and Barriers in Assessment] and the companion [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/tool-mitigating-biases-barriers-assessment.html Tool for Mitigating Biases and Barriers in Assessment] to assess language complexity, technology demands, timing, instructions, rating processes, and mitigation measures; retain the completed tool.
• Confirm approved accommodations in writing and standardize administration across the pool, as PSC’s fair‑assessment materials require: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/guide-mitigating-biases-barriers-assessment.html Guide to Mitigating Biases and Barriers in Assessment].
|-
!'''Step 10: Inform employees'''
|• Send bilingual, accessible letters that list the '''factors''' set under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html PSER, s.22(2)] and the '''assessment methods''' under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html PSER, s.22(4)] exactly as approved—no surprises—and include how to request accommodation per PSC Step 10: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists.]
• Use plain language and accessible formats for the notice; if posted online, ensure pages meet WCAG 2.1 AA using TBS’s Guidelines on Making Communications Products and Activities Accessible.
|-
!'''Step 11: Assessment of employees'''
|• Ensure assessors score '''independently''' first, then discuss; keep evidence‑based notes linked to rubrics; record any score changes with factual reasons
• Apply consistent administration conditions (timing, instructions, environment) to avoid procedural bias; PSC highlights these elements in its assessment guidance: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/guide-mitigating-biases-barriers-assessment.html Assessment module].
|-
!'''Step 12: Selection of employees'''
|• Confirm each retained employee met all '''essential qualifications''' before applying any organizational needs, using the factors you set under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html PSER, s.22(2)].[[/psacunion.ca/sites/psac/files/wfa-flowchart-treasuryboard-en.pdf|.]]
• Apply '''organizational needs''' (for representativeness) consistently and only among employees who met essentials per the merit rules under PSEA, s.30(2)(b)–(3).
• '''Re‑run your Projected Representation''' using actual results to check for unintended under‑representation; if risks remain and lawful mitigations (for example, organizational needs among those who met essentials) are insufficient, document the constraint and rationale in your Step 12 selection record as PSC expects under this step: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html <nowiki>Guide for managers and HR specialists. [canada.ca]</nowiki>]
|-
!'''Step 13: Provide written notice'''
|• For lay‑off letters, include at least: the decision under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.01/ PSEA, s.64], the specific factors applied under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html PSER, s.22(2)] and how they led to selection, the effective date, available WFA supports, and the right to complain to the '''Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board''' using the Board’s site [https://www.fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca/en/index.html FPSLREB] under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.01/ PSEA, s.65].
• Provide accessible formats on request and retain delivery proof (including to employees on leave) as part of your Step 13 record following PSC’s guidance under this step: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists.]
|-
!'''Step 14: Record the reasons for the selection'''
|• For each person, '''record the reasons for selecting or not selecting for lay‑off''' and link them to the evidence and the approved factors/methods as required by [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html PSER, s.22(10).]
• Include the '''initial and final Projected Representation worksheets''' to show you checked equity impacts before and after assessment, and cross‑reference your Step 1 and Step 12 files following PSC’s close‑out expectations here: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Guide for managers and HR specialists].
• Ensure your record is readable to external reviewers (PSC or FPSLREB) and aligns with the lay‑off complaint framework under [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.01/ PSEA, s.65], so the file demonstrates consistent, non‑discriminatory application of merit factors.
|}
=== Quick reference ===
* '''PSC''': [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Selection of employees for retention or lay‑off: Guide for managers and HR specialists]
* '''PSER (Justice Laws)''': [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2005-334/FullText.html Public Service Employment Regulations – s.22]
* '''PSEA (Justice Laws):''' [https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.01/ s.30 (Merit), s.64 (Lay‑off), s.65]
* '''TBS''': [https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=26168 Directive on Official Languages for People Management] and [https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32728 Guidelines on Making Communications Products and Activities Accessible]
* '''OCOL''': [https://www.clo-ocol.gc.ca/en/language-rights/language-rights-federal-public-service/language-requirements-positions Language requirements of positions]
* '''PSC assessment resources:''' [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff-guide-managers-hr.html Selection of employees for retention or lay-off: Guide for managers and human resources specialists] [[/www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/selection-employees-retention-layoff.html|SERLO assessment module]], [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/guide-mitigating-biases-barriers-assessment.html Guide to Mitigating Biases and Barriers in Assessment,] [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/tool-mitigating-biases-barriers-assessment.html Tool for Mitigating Biases and Barriers in Assessment]
* '''FPSLREB:''' [https://www.fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca/en/index.html Board website (staffing complaints, lay‑offs)]
----
----
