The following is the second in a four-part series by Philip Nicholls, an attorney-at-law and former Barbados Cricket Association secretary and former president of the Pickwick Cricket Club:
THE RIGHT of every worker to protest what they feel is an injustice in their working conditions is enshrined by law as is the fact that some workers such as those in essential services are prescribed by law from withholding their services.
This does not mean they can’t protest. While cricketers are in no way in this category where your actions have repercussions beyond your own narrow self-interest then it is incumbent on you to exercise a degree of restraint and reasonableness in your deliberations.
I am of the opinion that pulling up stumps because you are at odds with your chosen representative is not reasonable and I link it akin to a child having a tantrum. This does not mean that I apportion no blame to what occurred to the WICB.
It is my view that the WICB must bear partial responsibility for the state of affairs presently engulfing West Indies cricket if only because of the mantra that the buck stops here. The festering sore that was the relationship between the players and the board has now become septic, as the players after years of battle between WIPA and the WICB now seem to be distrustful of their representative, at least where dealings with the board are concerned, leading to the catastrophic events that recently occurred.
While some commentators feel that the blame for the present impasse rests entirely with the WICB, it is a view that I do not share. In any relationship that terminates or becomes acrimonious, no one party can be solely at fault, and successive boards must share some responsibility if not for creating then for not managing properly the underlying conditions that lead to the latest impasse.
It is also my view that despite criticism of their actions it is clear that the history of the relationship between the WICB and the players/WIPA needs to be looked at in any attempt to arrive at an understanding of how the players could have reached a decision to abandon the tour.
The relationship between the WICB and WIPA has been referred to as the equivalent of internecine warfare. The stand-offs that have occurred between the two organisations have been bitter, with the two most prominent characters being Dinanath Ramnarine (the former president  and chief executive officer of WIPA) and Dr Ernest Hilaire (the former chief executive officer of the WICB). Though it is true that Ramnarine has been at odds with most of his opposite numbers on the board, the relationship between the aforementioned two was particularly acrimonious. The departure of Dr Hilaire from his post – he was succeeded by Michael Muirhead and the change of guard at WIPA with Wavell Hinds at the helm and with a new WICB president in Dave Cameron, it appeared to signal a mending of the fences with the signing of the new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
It has always amazed me how the WICB has allowed itself to be outwitted over the years by Ramnarine. In any ten-minute conversation with him, he will be quick to remind you that he has won virtually every arbitration with the WICB and it is clear that these victories created a feeling within WIPA that they held the moral high ground in respect of relations with the WICB.
When added to this was the understandable public siding with the players who after all are household names a sense of entitlement to what I want, grew rather than a wider view of what is in the best interest of West Indies cricket. The players over the years became more emboldened with feelings developing that they could get away with whatever they wanted to do, safe in the knowledge that ‘Dinas’, as he is popularly known, would find a way out.
My first meeting with Ramnarine was while umpiring a regional Under-19 game at Wanderers Cricket Club in Barbados between Trinidad and Tobago – he was the captain – and Guyana, captained by André Percival. My colleague was Mervyn Jones.
On the second day of the game, there were frequent interruptions for rain, which favoured Trinidad and Tobago who had been dismissed cheaply on the first day. After another lengthy break, Mervyn and I determined play should resume and we took the field. We were followed by the Trinidad and Tobago team, and were approached by Ramnarine as follows: ‘Umps, I don’t agree with us playing’, to which we responded ‘Skipper, in our opinion play is possible and play it shall be’. We were then advised that he was warning us that if any of his players got injured in the damp conditions he would be suing us.
I admit to being somewhat taken aback that a youngster (after all he was under 19 at the time) would have the gumption to act as he did but I responded to him by saying that he was free to do as he pleased should that occur but should he serve my colleague or myself with any writ, I would simply have no choice but to defend the matter.
He looked at me quizzically and queried whether I was a lawyer. I replied in the affirmative, to which his response was, ‘what you doing down here?’ I just laughed, but the cricket proceeded peaceably without a peep from him after that.
I have always remembered this incident as the battles between him after he took over the leadership of WIPA and the WICB intensified which I watched first with quiet amusement and then growing consternation as he prevailed in battle after battle with the WICB, clearly because the board whatever the drawbacks of the then MOU, in my opinion failed to recognise the mettle of the adversary with which it was dealing. Whatever your views on Mr Ramnarine, it was clear that he was committed to the cause he had in front of him, and was often better prepared for the conflicts he chose to engage in than the WICB was.