"EVERYONE is saying that, the bottom line is he lied ? that's just so lame."

That's the opinion of two former colleagues of Berkeley site superintendent Gabriel Martel after he was fired following an industrial accident that could have killed a co-worker.

The two workmates, who both witnessed the incident, have confirmed Mr. Martel's version of events and agree that senior officials were looking for an excuse to have the Canadian guest worker booted off the project and off the island.

Mr. Martel was called to a meeting with officials at the beginning of February after a 40-pound light fixture came crashing down from its wall mounting, narrowly missing a construction worker below. It was the second time a fixture had been dislodged that morning.

Although not in the room when the accident occurred, Mr. Martel witnessed it through a glass wall. But when he recounted the event to other managers, they pointed out that his version did not tally with video camera footage. Accused of being a liar, he was sacked shortly afterwards.

But the two workers at the scene have confirmed that Mr. Martel was out of the room at the time, his viewpoint was opposite to that of the camera's and it was therefore no surprise that his account differed.

"Concerning the incident that got Mr. Martel fired, there were two different perspectives, the incident was seen from two opposite angles," one of the workers said.

"Mr. Martel was on the outside looking in and the surveillance camera was inside looking out ? of course, you're going to get two different accounts of what happened. What they saw on the camera wasn't what Mr. Martel was seeing. If they saw something moving from left to right, he saw it moving from right to left. Is that good enough reason to fire him?

"The point is they wanted him fired because he was doing his job and doing it too well. He was documenting everything, which is what he was meant to do. He was pointing out all the inadequate workmanship and the pictures that he took showed that."

Referring to the loose light fittings, the witness said: "Basically, they are being held up by luck. They were fixed with three inch screws which only went about one inch into the wall ? and those walls aren't solid.

"The first light that came down was hit by a sky jack, a lift, and yeah, of course if that thing comes down ? bang ? it doesn't matter what's holding the light on, it's going to come off.

"But the second time, that thing should not have come off the wall. You should be able to hang off a thing like that, you should be able to put 200 pounds on it. This thing came down just like that.

"Something's got to be hit for it to fall off the wall and the small hit that we had ? it was nothing. Yet people seemed to be okay with it. None of the fixtures were taken down and re-mounted. None of them were tested again."

Mr. Martel has provided this newspaper with a copy of an e-mail he wrote to a senior member of Somers Construction shortly after the incident. In it, he pleaded to have the remaining fixtures tested and, if necessary, properly secured, as they posed a health hazard. The fixtures had been installed by the electrical contractor, Telford Electric. The e-mail was ignored.

Although hired and fired by Somers Construction, Mr. Martel maintains that it was an official from the Ministry of Works & Engineering who wanted him off the job ? and threatened to withhold future Government projects from Somers if Mr. Martel wasn't dismissed.

He said Somers' General Superintendent, Mark Butt, confided to him that David Butterfield, the Ministry's man in charge of the site, had called for the expatriate to go. Mr. Martel was given a month's salary and left the island for Canada shortly after the incident.

So far neither the Ministry of Works & Engineering nor Somers Construction has been prepared to elaborate on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Martel's dismissal, other than to say that he was "caught in an untruth".

Speaking in the Senate last week, Works & Engineering Minister David Burch confirmed it was his Ministry that wanted Mr. Martel to quit, but only "as a consequence of the misrepresentation".

This week Mr. Martel's former workmates said he had paid the price for being too thorough, exposing a catalogue of faults at the school which some officials wanted to bury.

"Mr. Martel was there to do a job ? to make sure that the work got done. But if you don't play ball ? and Martel wasn't playing ball ? that's what people resent and that's what cost him his job. They resented him doing his job. They hired him to get the job done but he was doing it too well.

"He wasn't pissed off because he got fired, he was pissed off because the work wasn't being done the way it was supposed to."