Changes

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 centring fairness, transparency, and representativeness throughout all 14 SERLO steps.

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

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

'''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.

==== '''The lag between Census data and current workforce reality''' ====

==== '''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.   

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.

'''Implementation detail:''' Always record the specific Census year and publication date alongside the current date and any more recent labour market indicators consulted (for example, Labour Force Survey). Include a brief note on how data lag may affect interpretation to ensure clarity for reviewers.

==== '''Applying growth‑adjusted benchmarks for accurate modeling.''' ====

==== '''Applying growth‑adjusted benchmarks for accurate modeling.''' ====

To address the data lag, managers should not rely exclusively on the official WFA numbers for their internal planning. Instead, they should apply a more accurate threshold using the following formula: Adjusted\ Availability = Official\ WFA + (Recent\ LFS\ proportion - Census\ proportion). This incorporates the most recent Labour Force Survey (LFS) trends to find a more realistic representation threshold. Expanded guidance: Calculating an adjusted availability aligns planning with more current labour market conditions while still acknowledging the official benchmark. The adjustment should be calculated transparently, with data sources, dates, and calculations documented and retained.  By calculating an "Attainment Ratio" (Internal\ Representation \div Adjusted\ Availability), the department can identify if a unit is at risk of creating a new representation gap. If the ratio is above 1.0 against the old Census but below 1.0 against the adjusted benchmark, the organization should document this representation risk in the Step 1 Decision Record before proceeding with any layoffs. This ensures that the department does not accidentally reduce its workforce below the actual availability of the Canadian labor market.  

To address the data lag, managers should not rely exclusively on the official WFA numbers for their internal planning. Instead, they should apply a more accurate threshold using the following formula: Adjusted\ Availability = Official\ WFA + (Recent\ LFS\ proportion - Census\ proportion). This incorporates the most recent Labour Force Survey (LFS) trends to find a more realistic representation threshold.  

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Calculating an adjusted availability aligns planning with more current labour market conditions while still acknowledging the official benchmark. The adjustment should be calculated transparently, with data sources, dates, and calculations documented and retained.  By calculating an "Attainment Ratio" (Internal\ Representation \div Adjusted\ Availability), the department can identify if a unit is at risk of creating a new representation gap. If the ratio is above 1.0 against the old Census but below 1.0 against the adjusted benchmark, the organization should document this representation risk in the Step 1 Decision Record before proceeding with any layoffs. This ensures that the department does not accidentally reduce its workforce below the actual availability of the Canadian labor market.  

'''Implementation detail:''' Include attainment ratios both against the official WFA and against the adjusted availability. Where ratios disagree, note the variance and the potential equity impact, and consider mitigations (for example, scope choices, assessing organizational needs, or sequencing reductions).

'''Implementation detail:''' Include attainment ratios both against the official WFA and against the adjusted availability. Where ratios disagree, note the variance and the potential equity impact, and consider mitigations (for example, scope choices, assessing organizational needs, or sequencing reductions).

==== '''Requirements based on historical access to high‑profile assignments.''' ====

==== '''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 sponsorshi'''p.''' 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."   

When defining the Future State, there is a risk of defining required work around "prestige" assignments or high‑profile experience that has not been equally accessible to all employees. If future skills are based on factors like "acting at senior levels" or "executive briefing exposure," the process will naturally favor those who were historically given those opportunities through informal networks and sponsorship'''.'''  

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Requirements should be expressed in terms of what the job needs done, not the prestige of past opportunities. Screening for phrases that signal access rather than ability (for example, “central agency exposure”) helps avoid embedding historical privilege.  Employment Equity groups often face systemic barriers to these specific types of high‑visibility roles. To ensure fairness, every continuing function must be justified by its actual operational necessity rather than its historical prestige. Managers should replace these historical access requirements with clear, competency‑based descriptions of the tasks, ensuring that merit is based on the ability to do the work rather than having had a specific "seat at the table."   

'''Implementation detail:''' For each essential qualification, include a plain description of the linked duty and the observable behaviour that evidences competence (for example, “prepares clear briefings for senior audiences” rather than “has briefed executives”).

'''Implementation detail:''' For each essential qualification, include a plain description of the linked duty and the observable behaviour that evidences competence (for example, “prepares clear briefings for senior audiences” rather than “has briefed executives”).

==== '''The concentration of diversity in urban work centers.''' ====

==== '''The concentration of diversity in urban work centers.''' ====

Restructuring often involves moving work from regional offices to urban centers. Diversity levels are not spread evenly across the country; for instance, representation for members of visible minorities is often significantly higher in major cities compared to rural regions. Expanded guidance: Location choices materially affect representation. Consolidating to or from urban centres should be modelled for demographic impact, so decision makers can see the representation consequences of each option.  If the Future State involves closing an urban office without modeling the demographic impact, the organization may unintentionally eliminate a large portion of its diverse workforce. A "Geographic Representation Snapshot" must be completed to ensure that consolidation does not create a "diversity desert" and that the department maintains its commitment to a workforce that reflects the Canadian population it serves.  

Restructuring often involves moving work from regional offices to urban centers. Diversity levels are not spread evenly across the country; for instance, representation for members of visible minorities is often significantly higher in major cities compared to rural regions.  

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Location choices materially affect representation. Consolidating to or from urban centres should be modelled for demographic impact, so decision makers can see the representation consequences of each option.  If the Future State involves closing an urban office without modeling the demographic impact, the organization may unintentionally eliminate a large portion of its diverse workforce. A "Geographic Representation Snapshot" must be completed to ensure that consolidation does not create a "diversity desert" and that the department maintains its commitment to a workforce that reflects the Canadian population it serves.  

'''Implementation detail:''' The snapshot should show current representation by site, projected representation after proposed changes, and differences from departmental baselines and adjusted availability. Summarize findings in the Step 1 Decision Record and note mitigation steps where risks are identified.

'''Implementation detail:''' The snapshot should show current representation by site, projected representation after proposed changes, and differences from departmental baselines and adjusted availability. Summarize findings in the Step 1 Decision Record and note mitigation steps where risks are identified.

==== '''Linguistic requirements and the risk of rising language profiles.''' ====

==== '''Linguistic requirements and the risk of rising language profiles.''' ====

Official language requirements must be set objectively based on the actual functions of the position, as required by the Official Languages Act. There is a risk that language profiles are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a hidden tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool.  Expanded guidance: Language profiles must be justified by the nature of work, such as direct service to the public, supervision, or internal service delivery in both official languages. Any proposed profile changes should reference concrete duties that require that level.  Raising language requirements without a proven operational need acts as a structural filter that pushes out high‑performing employees who may not have been given equal access to language training. The Official Languages unit must provide written confirmation that any profile changes are justified by the work, ensuring language is used for service delivery and not as a shortcut for headcount management.

Official language requirements must be set objectively based on the actual functions of the position, as required by the Official Languages Act. There is a risk that language profiles are raised (for example, from Level B to Level C) as a hidden tool to reduce the number of people who can qualify for the retention pool.   

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' Language profiles must be justified by the nature of work, such as direct service to the public, supervision, or internal service delivery in both official languages. Any proposed profile changes should reference concrete duties that require that level.  Raising language requirements without a proven operational need acts as a structural filter that pushes out high‑performing employees who may not have been given equal access to language training. The Official Languages unit must provide written confirmation that any profile changes are justified by the work, ensuring language is used for service delivery and not as a shortcut for headcount management.

'''Implementation detail:''' Attach the Official Languages written confirmation to the Step 1 file. Ensure the rationale is specific (for example, “regular, direct service to the public in both official languages at advanced complexity requires Level C reading/writing/oral”).

'''Implementation detail:''' Attach the Official Languages written confirmation to the Step 1 file. Ensure the rationale is specific (for example, “regular, direct service to the public in both official languages at advanced complexity requires Level C reading/writing/oral”).

==== '''Performing a prediction of future representation rates.''' ====

==== '''Performing a prediction of future representation rates.''' ====

Before any positions are eliminated, the department should perform a review to predict the representation rates of the retained group. The formula used is: Projected\ Representation = (Current\ EE\ employees - Proposed\ reductions) \div Future\ total\ positions. Expanded guidance: This projection should be prepared for each affected unit and for the aggregate affected part. Assumptions should be stated (for example, which positions are proposed for elimination and the demographic composition of those positions).  This projection allows the organization to see the "diversity outcome" of their business decisions before they are finalized. Where the projection falls below adjusted availability or departmental baselines, the manager must document why the reduction will not deepen existing gaps. This ensures structural awareness and prevents the unintentional erosion of progress in Employment Equity.   

Before any positions are eliminated, the department should perform a review to predict the representation rates of the retained group. The formula used is: Projected\ Representation = (Current\ EE\ employees - Proposed\ reductions) \div Future\ total\ positions.  

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' This projection should be prepared for each affected unit and for the aggregate affected part. Assumptions should be stated (for example, which positions are proposed for elimination and the demographic composition of those positions).  This projection allows the organization to see the "diversity outcome" of their business decisions before they are finalized. Where the projection falls below adjusted availability or departmental baselines, the manager must document why the reduction will not deepen existing gaps. This ensures structural awareness and prevents the unintentional erosion of progress in Employment Equity.   

'''Implementation detail:''' If projections fall below adjusted availability or internal baselines, record the specific risk, the business constraint, and any mitigations (for example, reconsider scope, revisit essential qualifications to ensure fidelity to duties, or set an organizational need in Step 7 where appropriate and lawful).

'''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).

==== '''Drawing scope boundaries too tightly around diverse teams.''' ====

==== '''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.  

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).

'''Implementation detail:''' The Similar Work Test should list the core duties, the percentage of time for each duty, where those duties appear elsewhere, and a clear business reason for any exclusion (for example, work is continuing in that unit due to legislative requirement).

==== '''The impact of geographic boundaries on regional diversity.''' ====

==== '''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.  

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).

'''Implementation detail:''' Record the rationale for boundary selection in the Scope Determination Record and describe the measures used to provide equal access across regions (for example, simultaneous e‑mail notices, virtual town halls, bilingual Q\&A sessions).

==== '''Manipulating boundaries to avoid legal program triggers.''' ====

==== '''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.  

There is a risk that scope boundaries are drawn specifically to manipulate the "counts" of affected employees to avoid legal obligations. For instance, splitting a single team into two separate units might keep the number of affected employees below the "5 or more" threshold that triggers a mandatory Voluntary Departure Program (VDP).  

 

'''Expanded guidance:''' The design of scope must never be used to reduce or avoid employee rights. Labour Relations and HR should review scope for integrity and confirm that counts reflect the true affected part.  Labour Relations and HR must affirm that scope decisions are not being used to circumvent the rights of employees under the Workforce Adjustment Directive. The "Scope Determination Record" should include an accurate count of all affected indeterminate employees by group and level to ensure that all negotiated protections are triggered appropriately.  

'''Implementation detail:''' Include the counts, data sources, and date of extraction. If a VDP threshold is met, record that fact and list the next steps to comply.

'''Implementation detail:''' Include the counts, data sources, and date of extraction. If a VDP threshold is met, record that fact and list the next steps to comply.

==== '''The need for a representation check before finalizing scope.''' ====

==== '''The need for a representation check before finalizing scope.''' ====

Before the scope is finalized, the HR Analytics team should produce a "Snapshot" of representation for the proposed affected area. This snapshot should be compared against the departmental baseline and the sensitivity benchmarks established in Step 1.  Expanded guidance: The Snapshot should show representation by Employment Equity (EE) category, total counts, percentages, and comparisons to both departmental baselines and adjusted availability used in Step 1, so changes in scope can be tested for fairness effects.  If the proposed scope concentrates risk in a unit with significantly higher representation than the rest of the department, this concentration must be flagged. The manager should then review the scope to ensure that the definition of the affected part is truly based on the discontinuance of a function and not on an arbitrary boundary that produces an inequitable outcome.  

Before the scope is finalized, the HR Analytics team should produce a "Snapshot" of representation for the proposed affected area. This snapshot should be compared against the departmental baseline and the sensitivity benchmarks established in Step 1.   

 

'''Expanded guidance''': The Snapshot should show representation by Employment Equity (EE) category, total counts, percentages, and comparisons to both departmental baselines and adjusted availability used in Step 1, so changes in scope can be tested for fairness effects.  If the proposed scope concentrates risk in a unit with significantly higher representation than the rest of the department, this concentration must be flagged. The manager should then review the scope to ensure that the definition of the affected part is truly based on the discontinuance of a function and not on an arbitrary boundary that produces an inequitable outcome.  

'''Implementation detail:''' Where concentration exists, document whether the scope can be expanded or adjusted to align to the function rather than the particular team, and record the decision and rationale.

'''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.