Dear Editor,
The ‘firing ‘ of so many West Indian cricketers, Darren Bravo being the latest, has caused me to raise again the question of the proper relationship between players and the board. To the extent that players have signed contracts, in which they have, with legal advice, accepted that status, the issue does not arise. The working rule for the entire life of the board has been that players are employees of the board, and therefore are subject to be denied the privilege of representing the region whenever the board deems their behaviour to be contrary to, or inconsistent with, the interests of the board. The issue, however, ought to be reconsidered going forward.
It is a widely accepted common-law principle that an employer has the right, subject to agreement, to terminate an employee’s service “for cause” without compensation, and with compensation when there is “no cause”. The rationale for this right to dismiss is that an employer has the right to protect its investment from the negligence or deliberate misconduct of its employees. Does such a rationale apply between the WICB and the players? Mr Cameron and his fellow directors have no investment to protect, and may, therefore, with impunity, be irresponsible in dealing with the assets. The directors control the revenues earned either directly or indirectly by players, in trust for the nurture and development of the game. The players are paid from these revenues. This is not the conventional employer-employee relationship. Let us suppose the board decided, in the eighties, that Richards and Marshall should not be included in a playing 11, wouldn’t Lloyd as captain have been entitled, and likely, said to the board that it was essential to the interests of the region that Richards and Marshall play, and therefore insist that they play?
What we have is an organization, the board, that can afford to be irresponsible with assets in which they have no personal financial stake, while others who are not board members and have the same or more emotional stake than board members, are left to twiddle their thumbs. The board’s recent policy of appointing captains with little experience and clout may well be designed to enable the board to act with the kind of irresponsibility that has become its hallmark.
Although WIPA may have serious internal disputes, couldn’t its leadership organize the players for the specific purpose of getting this issue resolved?
It is my considered view that, apart from whatever document a player may have signed, West Indian cricketers are not employees of the board in the sense that the word employee is understood by the average person, or indeed in law. Not only the players, but West Indies cricket suffers immensely from the existence of circumstances in which a small group can determine arbitrarily who represents the region.
It is not necessary or indeed advisable for the players in Zimbabwe now to refuse to participate in the upcoming series, but they could ask WIPA to act as their spokesperson in resolving the issue of the circumstances in which players can be deprived of the privilege of representing the region. Many other players are likely to join them in pursuing that issue.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
