Mr. Tony Cozier's article of Sunday August 15th 2010, gives WIPA cause, once again, to set the record straight. Mr. Cozier has, not for the first time, written an article which does a disservice to his readers. Journalists have a duty to present a balanced point- of view, formed by seeking the perspective of the parties involved in an issue.
Had Mr. Cozier done so he would have avoided the inaccuracies, erroneous assertions and conclusions which plague his article. This is indeed unfortunate for someone who is an experienced cricket commentator and purportedly the doyen of cricket scribes in the region. Had Mr. Cozier taken the time to check with WIPA about the issue between the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) and the Guyana players with respect to their participation in the forthcoming Champions League T20 tournament in South Africa, he would not have been so quick to accuse WIPA of ‘brinkmanship” in this and in other previous situations. WIPA refutes this charge and now seeks to lay out the facts. As is known, WIPA is the recognized player representative and in that capacity, contracts are to be forwarded to WIPA and not to the players directly.
This procedure is designed to ensure that the players' consent is informed when given and that player welfare issues, such as insurance, injury payments, drug-testing and yes, match fees, are provided for in the contracts, and that in signing the contracts the players are aware of all of the obligations which they must fulfill. However, in recent times, contracts, when they are issued, are given directly to the players without them being forwarded to WIPA. I
IIn respect of the Caribbean T20 tournament, players once again played without contracts. However on July 28th 2010 the Guyanese players were given documents relating to the Airtel T/20 2010 Champions League and were asked to sign them. These documents consisted of 5 or 6 pages out of over 100 pages. WIPA had not seen the documents at that time and, the GCB over the next 2days repeatedly asked the players to sign the documents.n fact the WICB has formed a practice of either refusing to negotiate either in advance with WIPA as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or refusing to negotiate at all and in so doing acting contrary to the CBA and MOU.
The players repeatedly asked the GCB to provide WIPA with the necessary information so that WIPA could advise them but the GCB did not do so and in fact no documents were ever provided by the GCB to WIPA. On July 31st 2010 when the Guyana team was triumphant the GCB insisted that the documents be signed and advised that should they not be signed within the deadline given, the Barbados team would be sent.
which were incorporated into the contracts given to the players, and the players had not been given these documents. When they asked for them they were told that they were too voluminous. The players consulted WIPA who advised that they not sign until they had had sight of all the documents because in signing they were undertaking to have read and understood all the documents. On August 1st 2010 the players signed some of the pages provided, exclusive of the pages containing the terms and conditions. The players also wrote a letter to the GCB and copied it to the CEO of the WICB and the President of WIPA. This letter advised that they had signed the documents without their representatives seeing the document and subject to certain conditions, among them that the terms and conditions be settled between the GCB and WIPA and that the necessary authorization from the rights holder be procured for the use of the players' image rights.The Guyana players were reluctant to sign the documents, not only because WIPA had not been provided with copies so as to be able to advise them, but also because the pages provided referred to other documents
WIPA advised that any document signed under duress would be null and void.WIPA then wrote to the GCB and copied the CEO of the WICB and complained about the pressure being brought to bear on the players and about the exclusion of WIPA.
On Monday 2nd August 2010 the President of the GCB, Mr. Chetram Singh, acceded to the request of players and entered into dialogue with Mr. Ramnarine. The parties agreed that WIPA would draft a proposal for consideration as soon as possible given the time constraints. WIPA immediately got to work and sent the proposal to Mr. Singh on Tuesday August 3rd 2010, knowing that there was a deadline set by organizers of the Champions League to reach agreement by 5.00 p.m on Wednesday 4th August 2010.
Mr. Singh telephoned Mr. Ramnarine at WIPA’s offices and they discussed the matter after the proposal was sent and he advised that the proposal had to be considered by the full Executive and that a response would be forthcoming shortly. No response was ever given and the acting Minister of Sport in Guyana then intervened to assist in advancing the process and on Friday August 13th 2010 a Memorandum of Agreement, very similar to the one proposed by WIPA, was signed by the parties. On that day WIPA was forwarded an article from the Starbroek News and learnt that the GCB had sought and procured an injunction against WIPA, itsrevelation as it had not, and still has not, been served with any legal documents advising of the injunction and the writ, and to its knowledge, was in negotiation at the time that the injunction was sought and the Writ filed, and these negotiations were on the brink of success. The above clearly shows that WIPA did not "suddenly" see something which it did not like in the contract, as asserted by Mr. Cozier, nor did any impasse develop.
The players insisted on representation from their Association and when the GCB finally agreed to it, negotiations started. In fact at that time WIPA then sought a copy of the Airtel contract from another source in order to do its job. WIPA never threatened strike action. WIPA sought the interests of some of its members and will continue to do so, as is its right and obligation. Mr. Cozier appears to know more about the injunction than WIPA, who has not yet been served with the Court's Order or the Writ of Summons filed against it. Where is the brinkmanship in what WIPA has done? It has justifiably represented its members against those who were trying to get them to sign documents by apparently deliberately failing to accept their representative as the sole bargaining agent, as stipulated in the Agreements alluded to earlier. WIPA further states that it is the ill-preparedness of the WICB and some of its satellite Boards that have contributed to issues being resolved only at the “eleventh hour”—not WIPA.
The WICB instead prefers to expend large sums of money in pursuing arbitration. Even Mr. Cozier states in the article that “Ramnarine boasts that the WIPA has won seven issues with the WICB”. One would have thought that in such a situation any journalist would enquire into why the WICB found itself on the losing end of these seven arbitrations. What is particularly ironic is that even Mr. Cozier acknowledges the “proven weakness of the (Board) administration” and an “unprepared Board”.The WICB is, on most occasions, guilty of issuing contracts at the eleventh hour( or not at all) , dilatory in responding to requests made by WIPA, guilty of failing to honour agreements on a timely basis, of making an issue of players’ entitlements under the agreements.
A little research from Mr. Cozier would also have unearthed another truth that does not fit with the current establishment meme of how well West Indian players are remunerated. Contrary to his and several others (who should know better) with their repeated mouthings, while the International West Indian cricketers are comparably paid in match fees, they are the second lowest paid in retainer payments and in overall yearly earnings when retainer and match fees are totaled, and are the second lowest paid in yearly earnings as determined by their international association.
Mr. Cozier fails to examine whether there is any nexus between the levels of competence and administration of the national and regional boards and the deleterious impact such may have on players’ performances on the field as well as on the creation of the needed environment for cricketers at all levels to develop and thrive. Instead he lays some of the blame at the feet of the Players' Association and predicts that the poor performances will continue until "this nonsense is ended, once and for all".
Would Mr. Cozier care to elaborate whether he refers to the practice of issuing contracts at the eleventh hour or not at all, and refusing to involve the players' representative in any discussions or to provide it with copies of the contracts? Or perhaps he is referring to the practice of issuing 4 or 5 pages of a contract which incorporates a further 95 pages and which, when signed, would represent that the player has read all 100 pages? Should WIPA be castigated for securing and protecting its members’ interest? Perhaps, Mr. Cozier will tell the public if there is any representative body who pursues a different path.
