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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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.

1. What This Step Is

Step 1 establishes the operational basis for initiating a SERLO. It begins when the Deputy Head determines that the services of some, but not all, employees in a defined area are no longer required due to lack of work, a discontinued function, or organizational restructuring under PSEA s.64.

Determinations required before any assessment.

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

Environmental scan requirements.

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

Structural foundation reminder.

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

2. Required Actors

Accountable authority.

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

Operational lead.

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

Required support functions.

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

3. Mandatory Documentation — Step 1 Decision Record

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

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.

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.

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.

3.4 Skills‑gap analysis. Identify the future‑state skills required, the skills currently present, the gaps, and the evidence sources.

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

4. Structural Risk of Workforce Availability Reliance

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

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.

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

5. Required Workforce‑Availability Mitigation Controls

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).

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

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.

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.

5.5 Future‑state projection. Project future representation and compare to both official and adjusted availability; if below either benchmark, consider mitigation.

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

6. Equity Risk Areas at Step 1

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

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

6.3 Geographic consolidation risk. Model representational impacts of consolidation across regions before finalizing.

6.4 Official‑language profile escalation. Validate language requirements against actual duties with Official Languages.

7. Barrier Forecast

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

8. Representation Floor Review

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

9. Required Sign‑Off Before Proceeding to Step 2

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

10. Structural Importance of Step 1

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

---

STEP 2 — Determine the Affected Part(s) of the Organization

Legislative and Policy Basis

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

1. What This Step Is

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

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

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

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

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

2. Who Completes This Step

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

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

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

3. Mandatory Outputs and Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. What Can Go Wrong (Equity Risks)

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

5. Mitigations (Specific, Operational, Auditable)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

STEP 3 — Identify the Positions and the Affected Employees

Legislative and Policy Framework

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

1. What This Step Is

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

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

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

2. What Must Be Identified

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

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

3. Required Actors

Accountable. Delegated Manager.

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

4. Mandatory Documentation — Step 3 File Requirements

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

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

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

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

5. Equity Risks at Step 3

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

6. Mandatory and Control‑Based Mitigations

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. How to Operationalize the Similar Duties Analysis

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

8. Governance Sign‑Off

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

9. Structural Importance of Step 3

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

---

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

Legislative and Policy Framework

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

1. What This Step Is

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

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

2. Required Actors

Accountable. Delegated Manager.

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

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

3. Mandatory Notifications

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

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

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

4. Mandatory Documentation — Step 4 File Requirements

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

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

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

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

5. Equity Risks at Step 4

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

6. Mandatory and Control‑Based Mitigations

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Executive‑Specific Requirements

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

8. Governance Sign‑Off Before Proceeding to Step 5

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

9. Structural Importance of Step 4

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

---