Narsingh Deonarine arbitration award (key points)
Mon, Oct 1, '12
Narsingh Deonarine is the latest West Indies cricketer to win an arbitration award in a case against the WICB. Here are the key points of Deonarine's arbitration award :
1. FINANCIAL AWARD
The sum of US $50,000.00 as damages for loss of retainer
The sum of US $10,000.00 as damages for loss of match fees
The full sum of US $15,000.00 being loss of provident fund contributions given his age,
The sum of US$2,500.00 as damages for loss of publicity/ reputation.
The sum of US$ 1,000.00 as damages for breach of contract (denigration and failure to ensure fair and transparent selection process.)
That the WICB pay 2/3 of the full cost of the arbitration and to refund WIPA 2/3 of all fees paid to the Arbitrator for the arbitration.
2. DETAILS OF THE BREACHES:
(a) Breach of Natural Justice
The WICB CEO accused Deonarine of having a poor attitude and approach to physical preparation in a letter to him on January 11, 2010, citing a review
conducted by the WICB following the tour to Australia. These accusations against Deonarine were made without having provided him with any copies of the alleged reports and without providing him with an opportunity to consider, explain or rebut any of the “findings”
(b) Article VII (e) (i) and (ii) of the MoU – Integrity of the Selection Process
Mr. Deonarine was not offered a retainer contract for the 2010-2011 contract period which started on October 1st, 2010. The basis for not renewing the contract
was never formally communicated to him, no appraisal process was conducted as required by the MOU and he was never informed of the particulars of any
complaints against him or negative reports that would cause the WICB not to renew his contract. Also, he was not given any opportunity to remedy the situation. This means that Article VII (e) (ii) of the MOU was breached as the selection process was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner.
(c) Article VII (e) (ii) of the MoU – Public Denigration of a Player
Negative statements about Deonarine’s poor level of fitness, and poor results from fitness tests were widely printed and or broadcast in the local and worldwide
media and threatened his credibility and ability to earn a livelihood as a professional cricketer. His professional reputation and marketability were severely damaged. These comments were also in breach of Article VII (e) (ii) of the MOU which provides that the selectors should not make any public comments which denigrate a player.
(d) Schedule F to the MoU – Performance Appraisals
Schedule F to the MoU provides that formal, written appraisals be conducted throughout the contract period for those players who are Retained players so that
during the contract period they can be constantly aware of any shortcomings or issues which may require them to do extra work and assist them in becoming better professional cricketers. These appraisals are to be carried out by the Head Coach and signed off by the Team Manager. No such appraisal was ever carried out.
OTHER KEY POINTS IN THE DEONARINE ARBITRATION AWARD
1. WICB REFUSED TO ENGAGE IN THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS (Page 6, Paragraphs 2.13 to 2.16 of the Arbitrator’s Ruling)
WIPA wrote to the WICB on behalf of Mr. Deonarine on September 30th, 2010 invoking the Grievance Procedure in the Retainer Contract, which required the WICB to meet with WIPA to resolve all the issues complained of.
The WICB replied on October 6th, 2010 stating that Mr. Deonarine was “not entitled” to invoke the Grievance Procedure and refusing to meet.
On October 12th, 2010, WIPA responded to the October 6th letter again highlighting the breaches of contract by the WICB, and having had no response, wrote again to the WICB on October 21st, advising them that WIPA was in the process of referring the matter to mediation, as provided for in the agreements. By November 2nd 2010, the WICB had still not replied, and WIPA wrote them on that same day to advise that they had submitted their request for mediation to the Dispute Resolution Foundation, Trinidad (DRC) for mediation.
2. THE WICB CEO LIED ABOUT SENDING THE MATTER TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOUNDATION OF TRINIDAD – (Page 6, Paragraph 2.17 of the Arbitrator’s Ruling)
The WICB wrote to WIPA on November 4th, 2010 and agreed to submit its own request for mediation to the DRC and wrote again on December 6th 2010 to advise that it had done so. Subsequent inquires by WIPA to the DRC revealed that this had not been done until December 13th, 2010. As a direct consequence of this, the DRC became unavailable.
As a result the matter was referred to arbitration.
3. NONE OF THE WICB CEO, HEAD COACH or TEAM MANAGER TESTIFIED ON THEIR BEHALF AT THE HEARING (Page 26 – Paragraph 7.5 of the Arbitrator’s Ruling)
All of the above named persons have an integral role to play in the selection process. The WICB chose not to send any of them to the arbitration hearing.