Why WIPA will never lose an arbitration
CaribbeanCricket.com news analysis
The West Indies Players Association this month announced another victory in its endless series of arbitration wins over the West Indies Cricket Board. Most cricket fans have lost count (and perhaps interest) but the score must be something like 267 to nil at the moment.
What exactly is WIPA’s winning formula though? How is it that the players’ body is able to chalk up victory after arbitration victory over the WICB seemingly at will?
To understand the issue we have to examine the binding documents between the WICB and WIPA – the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the attendant Memorandum of Understanding (the two documents go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive).
These are unique documents. For the layman it is effectively the governing documents between the WICB and WIPA which spell out how the two will relate to each other.
It is common for governing sporting bodies and their players associations to have such documents.
What appears to be unique with the WICB/WIPA CBA/MOU is that they explicitly require that the WICB receive WIPA’s ‘agreement’ before proceeding on virtually any issue. The convention is that the CBAs between sporting bodies and players associations (such as the NFL and NFLPA) require the governing body to consult with the players association (and adhere to predetermined standards) but not receive its agreement.
What the WICB/WIPA CBA/MOU effectively does is make the WICB beholden to WIPA.
Let us examine what the MOU actually says. Here is one example:
Article VI (Scheduling) (c) Finalisation of Programmes
(i) The WICB and the WIPA will agree on an annual basis, prior to WICB finalising arrangements relevant to the regional programme and the overseas programme (including dates, locations, travel and accommodation arrangements). The WICB will provide the WIPA with reasonable opportunity to consider the proposed arrangements prior to adoption.The documents are littered with similar wording which requires WIPA’s ‘agreement’. In effect, the CBA/MOU dictates that the WICB cannot function as a governing body without WIPA’s ‘agreemen’t at all times and on all matters. It is this wording which WIPA, under its long standing President and CEO, Dinanath Ramnarine exploits and secures its arbitration victories.
Practically the following chronology of events is an example of how those now familiar arbitrations begin, evolve and conclude:
1. WICB sets a draft schedule for a regional tournament (say the Regional 4 Day Tournament)
2. WICB sends draft schedule to WIPA for review, comments
3. WIPA sends back the draft schedule with a multitude of issues and demands
These issues vary from time to time but are usually along the same lines such as:
i) WIPA demands more rest days between matches
ii) WIPA demands that each player has his own hotel room (at the international level this is the norm but at the first class level it is the global norm for players to share rooms)
iii) WIPA demands more matches in the tournament
iv) WIPA demands four or five star accommodations
4. WICB responds to WIPA stating that it cannot accommodate WIPA’s demands (which the WICB deems unreasonable) and seeks WIPA’s agreement.
5. WIPA responds (or sometimes does not respond) saying it does not agree to the schedule.
6. WICB is now faced with 2 choices: i) It can either adhere to WIPA’s disagreement cancel the regional tournament at the detriment of cricket and cricketers or ii) proceed with the tournament despite of WIPA’s disagreement.
Naturally the WICB has always taken the option of having cricket play. This then results in WIPA (as per the procedure outlined in the CBA) filing a Notice of Dispute. The WICB and WIPA then go into good faith negotiations. When this fails, as it invariably does, they proceed to mediation. When this fails, as it virtually always does, they proceed to arbitration and the result, as we know, is that WIPA prevails.
WIPA prevails because the CBA/MOU requires that it gives its ‘agreement’, which it rarely, if ever does, and thus the WICB since it goes ahead and hosts tournaments and gets on with the other business of West Indies cricket for the benefit of cricket and the cricketers is considered to be in ‘breach’.
The arbitrators, grounded in the letter of the law, can only make judgments based on what the CBA/MOU outlines and it does specifically say (as highlighted in the example above) that WIPA ‘must’ agree. Once WIPA does not explicitly gives its agreement then the WICB is doomed to fail in the arbitration. The other option, quite simply, would be for West Indies cricket to come to a standstill and eventually cease.
It is the case of the most classical Catch 22 situation for the WICB.
So while cricket goes on on the fields it is an endless cycle of Notices of Dispute, Good Faith Negotiations, Mediations and Arbitrations behind the scenes because WIPA will never give its ‘agreement’. And with the CBA/MOU constructed in the manner it is WIPA will prevail til thy kingdom come.
So until there is a new CBA/MOU (WICB and WIPA are supposed to be negotiating for a new one but the process does not seem to be going anywhere) strap in for more of the same.