LOWCOCK.
He allegedly called his boss a “fag,” reportedly labelled one
colleague a “fat ass,” and is accused of ordering student employees not
to outshine him. But because Ted Lowcock wasn’t properly disciplined
before his firing, he will be back on the job early next year.
The former Town of Bracebridge bylaw officer, who was fired in 2010,
got his job back after an exhaustive 60-page ruling on Tuesday, Dec. 11
by Mississauga labour arbitrator Louisa M. Davie. Though Lowcock keeps
his rank and seniority, he will not get his two years of lost wages. His
official reinstatement date was last Friday, Dec. 21, but he will not
start patrolling the streets again until Jan. 2.
“In short, there were a significant number of transgressions. Those
transgressions the town chose to highlight in support of the termination
were all upheld and verified by the arbitrator,” said Mayor Graydon
Smith. “Mr. Lowcock did in fact commit several unacceptable acts, and
behaved unacceptably, and as penalty for that, the two years that he was
previously terminated – there is no compensation for that.”
This newspaper attempted to reach Lowcock for comment through the
Ontario Public Service Employees Union, but local president Tom Young
said Lowcock is declining to speak to media at this time.
Young, however, did point out that the town had failed to give
Lowcock a fair chance to change his behaviour before he was axed.
“Mr. Lowcock was not given the opportunity to fix the allegations,
hence the arbitrator realized that and awarded him his job back,” said
Young.
Young expressed confidence that Lowcock will carry on effectively with his job.
“He’s going to go into his job with the professionalism that he can
do, and do the job to the best of his ability,” he said. “Ted is a
22-year veteran, and he’s good at what he does, and he will go back into
that position with the professionalism that he can do, and he will be a
good bylaw officer that the town is expecting of him.
Davie, however, had a much dimmer view of Lowcock in her report. She
described him as “motivated by self interest” and “argumentative.”
Noting discrepancies in his testimony, Davie further felt he was
perceived as an “unsatisfactory employee who does not take direction
well, and who exhibits an inclination towards confrontational or
bullying behaviour.”
Lowcock, on the other hand, believed his job performance was stellar, and felt management was the problem.
“In (Lowcock’s) view, he was, and had always been, a dedicated
employee, with good work habits and communications skills, and a
conscientious hard-working approach to bylaw enforcement (as evidenced
by, for example, his willingness to be on call 24/7),” Davie wrote in
her report.
Her report shows that Lowcock had lingering resentment towards the
town since at least 2006, as he felt he was passed over for promotion to
chief bylaw officer.
Through testimony from a student who later worked under him, Davie
reported that Lowcock believed this was because the previous CAO had an
affair with his wife, and that the man was “crooked and corrupt.” The
same student said Lowcock made similar accusations about present CAO
John Sisson’s moral character.
One student testified that Lowcock called Sisson a “fag,” while
another said he called Sisson a “queer” – claims that Lowcock denied.
In the time leading up to 2010, the town’s view of Lowcock was that
of an “insubordinate” and “unco-operative” employee who had
“communication issues with others.”
But in apparent effort to smooth things out, the town arranged for
him to sign a contract on April 7, 2010, which reiterated his duties and
that he needed to follow orders, but noted he wouldn’t be disciplined
for his performance up to that point. Lowcock felt he signed the
document “under duress,” fearing a refusal could eventually get him
fired.
Davie emphasized the contract was not a proper disciplinary measure.
An outside facilitator was introduced in July, who recommended that a
more formal, detailed job description be created for Lowcock with clear
performance standards. The facilitator also suggested that his
supervisor – chief bylaw officer Scott Stakiw – be assigned to watch
over and mentor Lowcock.
But the suggestions didn’t reach Lowcock until October because of the
busy summer season, and because Lowcock himself was tied up with
hearings on Aug. 27 for a separate disciplinary matter.
Things went downhill fast for Lowcock four days after that hearing,
when two student employees revealed Lowcock’s alleged comments about
Sisson’s sexual orientation to Stakiw. They testified that Lowcock
instructed them to slow their pace of work, and that he portrayed Stakiw
as a pencil pusher who didn’t do any of the enforcement work.
Lowcock denied using the homophobic language, and claimed he told the
students to slow down to ensure accuracy. He later also claimed the
order was an “icebreaker” meant to put the students at ease.
Davie didn’t buy Lowcock’s explanation, calling it “revisionist thinking.”
“In all of the circumstances I find that (Lowcock) told the students
to slow down because if they didn’t, he would be expected to go equally
fast or because it would make him look bad if he didn’t do the task as
quickly,” she wrote.
Sisson finally had a chat with Lowcock on Sept. 8, during which
Sisson claimed Lowcock made comments about the previous CAO being “run
out of town,” and that “maybe it’s time for the current CAO to leave.”
Davie said Sisson didn’t discipline Lowcock because he felt the
conversation was private, and because Lowcock had already been recently
disciplined in his Aug. 27 hearing. That, Davie said, was a critical
error.
“An employee who is not told that the employer regards his behaviour
is unacceptable is not given the opportunity to correct that behaviour
and is unaware that his behaviour has placed his job in jeopardy,” she
wrote.
With the rod spared, the misconduct apparently continued. On Oct. 19,
Davie’s report claims Lowcock made further homophobic comments about
Sisson to a driver he ticketed. Though Lowcock denied using offensive
language, Davie dismissed the credibility of his claim.
“(Sisson) described the words as demeaning, derogatory and hurtful,” Davie wrote.
That same day, another town employee told Sisson of harassment
received from Lowcock. Lowcock had a loud conversation with the
employee’s assistant, in which he derided the employee’s merit behind a
recent award, and allegedly also called the employee a “fat ass.” The
conversation was overheard by the employee.
On Nov. 3, Stakiw found Lowcock at home during work hours. Though
Lowcock explained he had stopped by briefly to let his dog out, Davie
concluded he hadn’t answered calls for work for almost an hour because
he was actually taking an unauthorized extended break.
Twelve days later, Stakiw found Lowcock parked outside his home,
supposedly trying to stake out when his supervisor went for lunch.
Lowcock also blacked out “significant portions” of his notebooks from
that day onward before returning them to the town.
The town finally confronted Lowcock about his behaviour at a Nov. 26
meeting, where he offered a mix of denials and explanations for his
conduct. From that point on, Lowcock refused to remain on call on a 24/7
basis, saying he would only pick up half of those duties. This was
despite the fact that Davie’s report states Lowcock threatened to file a
grievance and reacted “negatively” a year earlier when suggestions were
floated to have part-time employees pick up some of the on-call work.
Sisson finally pulled the plug on Lowcock with council’s blessing in
December. Lowcock was offered an agreement to resign on Dec. 6, 2010,
which he refused. Three days later, he was officially fired.
Despite her harsh words for Lowcock, Davie agreed with the union’s
position that the town dragged its feet on addressing Lowcock’s
misconduct.
“Until he was discharged on Dec. 9, 2010, the employer did little to
put (Lowcock) on notice that his behaviour and conduct was inappropriate
and unacceptable, and that if it persisted he put his job at risk as
there would be increasing sanctions which would eventually culminate in
the termination of his employment,” she wrote.
Lowcock’s reinstatement last week, however, comes with restrictions.
He has been warned to watch what he says, and is to be kept on a tight
leash by his supervisors for one year. He must also attend communication
training.