A Portuguese cleaner who won $250,000-plus in compensation after being injured at work is typical of many migrant workers with "very little say" in their working conditions, according to his lawyer.

Antonio Fagundo, who is originally from the Azores, sued his employers for negligence after he slipped on a wet floor at work.

The 67-year-old won a Supreme Court ruling in his favour last October.

Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley found that Island Cleaning Services was liable for the accident because it should have supplied him with special safety shoes for the job he was doing, stripping wax from floors.

The judge awarded him $257,303 compensation for his injuries and loss of earnings.

Mr. Fagundo suffered damage to his wrist that left him with a 60 percent loss of movement in his left hand.

He already has a paralysed right hand, stemming from an accident when he was 16 years old, and has been unable to continue working as a cleaner since the accident ten years ago.

He has undergone several surgeries for his injury in Bermuda and Boston.

The compensation reflects what Mr. Fagundo could have earned up to the age of 65. However, Island Cleaning is now contesting the award at the Court of Appeal.

The company's lawyer, Kevin Taylor, argued yesterday that the company did not fail in a duty of care to Mr. Fagundo.

He asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling, or at least consider reducing the compensation by 50 percent, because Mr. Fagundo's "contributory negligence" was a factor in his accident.

Mr. Taylor said Mr. Fagundo should have supplied his own safety shoes, which are not sold on the Island but could be obtained from another local cleaning company.

Mr. Fagundo told Supreme Court that it was not possible to go to a rival cleaning company for the shoes, and he bought a pair of cheaper tennis shoes instead.

Mr. Taylor also told the Court of Appeal that he could have refused to work without the shoes if he felt they were important for his safety.

But lawyer Jai Pachai, who represents Mr. Fagundo, said the cleaner -  who was earning just $12 per hour for a 70-hour week -  is in a similar position to many guest workers.

"He did not have the influence or power to stand up to an employer and say 'I will not do it'." said Mr. Pachai. "It's the reality of the work situation in Bermuda.

"There are many workers like Mr. Fagundo who have very little say in their work conditions, terms of employment, or even to say 'I'm not going to do this particular job".

Speaking to The Royal Gazette after the appeal, which has yet to be decided, Mr. Fagundo revealed that he has not received any of his compensation because Island Cleaning is contesting the ruling.

He's worked as a cleaner in Bermuda on and off since the mid-1970s, and has family here. He's been unable to work since his accident in September 2000 and recieved two years of $330-per-month disability allowance before his Government pension became payable at the age of 65.

"Since the accident my hand has been just like this," he told this newspaper yesterday, demonstrating his almost-paralysed wrist and fingers.

"It's a problem to dress myself and I can't do fishing or gardening. Any compensation by this court I believe will never cover what I was supposed to earn all those years of my life. I intended to work not just to 65 but as long as possible, as long as I had my health."

Mr. Fagundo said he hoped his compensation would not be cut.

"You've got to defend your rights. Never lose hope," he said.

Island Cleaning's owner and manager, Richard Thompson, told the original Supreme Court hearing it was company practice for staff to select and purchase their own footwear.

He said Mr. Fagundo never asked for a pair of safety shoes, and would have been given some if he had.

The injured cleaner claimed he and others asked operations manager John Ferreira for protective footwear but were rebuffed. Mr. Justice Kawaley did not rule on that issue, due to the conflicting evidence.

However, he found that Island Cleaning Services had a duty to provide a safe place of work and should have supplied Mr. Fagundo with safety shoes.

The judge noted in his written ruling that Mr. Fagundo was at particular risk of being injured in a fall due to his age and pre-existing disability.–"A reasonable employer aware of such heightened risks would not, in my judgement, leave it entirely to an employee in the plaintiff's position to either demand safety footwear or to purchase such safety equipment himself," he wrote.

The judge rebutted the suggestion that Mr. Fagundo could have refused to work if he was unhappy with his conditions, saying: "The idea that the plaintiff as a comparatively vulnerable apparently non-unionised work-permit holder should be viewed, by virtue of his experience, as easily able to make safety demands of his employer seems highly artificial having regard to the obvious disparities in power between him and the Bermudian principal of his employing company."

The appeals judges declined yesterday to overturn the Supreme Court ruling. However, they retired to consider their ruling on the issue of contributory negligence. They are expected to deliver their findings on Friday June 18.