Ep54 - 2009: New letter to Eni’s Board of Directors

In 2009, after my labor lawsuit against AGIP do Brasil was definitively closed by the Brazilian Superior Labor Court on procedural grounds, without the merits of my appeal being reconsidered, I decided to contact Eni’s headquarters in Italy once again.

There was an important reason.

Eni had a new CEO, and new professionals were serving on its Board of Directors. This leadership might therefore not have been fully aware of what had happened to me at the former Brazilian subsidiary.

On October 19, 2009, I sent a ten-page MEMORIAL directly to Eni’s CEO, Paolo Scaroni, with copies to Chairman Roberto Poli, the Board of Directors, the Board of Statutory Auditors, and other governance bodies, reconstructing my history with the company.

I did not simply ask them to believe my word.

I presented a chronology: my hiring by AGIP Brasil; the professional results I achieved; my transfer to Cuiabá; the serious irregularities that came to my attention; my decision to report them in accordance with Eni’s Code of Ethics; and my dismissal just weeks later on the grounds of “breach of trust”.

I also reported something particularly relevant: following my reports, the regional manager who had been the subject of them and other employees from the Cuiabá Regional Office subsequently left the company.

And I reminded Eni’s new leadership that this was not my first attempt to be heard.

Since 2002, I had already approached the company’s Board, asking two simple questions:

🔹 What is the purpose of Eni’s Code of Ethics?

🔹 And what are the responsibilities of those entrusted with ensuring its implementation?

I received no answer.

But something happened afterwards.

Following my communications to Eni’s headquarters, Angelo Mario Taraborrelli, then COO of Refining & Marketing, came to Brazil. The investigations were followed locally by Paolo Grossi, an Eni executive from Rome and, by 2009, VP of Refining & Marketing. A series of departures followed, including regional managers and, later, the commercial director who had dismissed me.

That is why, in 2009, I decided to place the entire story once again before Eni’s highest governance bodies.

The Code of Ethics reproduced in my MEMORIAL stated that Eni should consider concerns raised by its stakeholders, oversee compliance with the Code, ensure transparency and, when necessary, take corrective action.

That was exactly what I expected.

An independent examination of the facts.

An answer.

And, if the facts were confirmed, corrective action.

The Memorial also made clear what I was seeking:

📌 to restore my name, my image, and my reputation.

After eight years of trying to be heard, I gave Eni’s new leadership another opportunity to examine what had happened in Brazil.

Eni’s response?

None.

And that silence would change the next chapter of this story.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ 2009 Memorial to ENI:
🔹 Italian
🔹 English
2️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events 

Ep53 - The labor proceedings ended

Yesterday, I showed that my appeal to the TRT-SP was not heard on the merits because of a procedural issue concerning proof of payment of court costs.

My lawyers did not give up.

During that period, I was introduced to Amauri Mascaro Nascimento, a leading Brazilian labor law scholar and founder of Mascaro Nascimento Advogados.

After learning about the case, he offered his law firm’s services without charging legal fees.

The dispute eventually reached Brazil’s Superior Labor Court (TST - Tribunal Superior do Trabalho).

And there was one particularly important element.

In 2005, CAIXA issued an official statement after reviewing its records.

Its conclusion was explicit:

📌 “The payment was duly made”.

CAIXA also acknowledged that it could have better advised me about obtaining the final receipt and stated that, after identifying problems with its self-service procedure, it suspended DARF collections through that module to adjust the process.

More importantly, CAIXA considered its confirmation sufficient to support the appeal and stated that there would be no reason for the Court to reject it.

Yet the merits remained outside the Court’s review.

The TST did not examine whether I had identified irregularities, complied with the Code of Ethics by reporting them, or whether my dismissal weeks later could have constituted retaliation.

The dispute remained procedural.

On May 27, 2009, the TST’s 5th Panel unanimously denied the appeal.

Thus ended a six-year legal battle.

Even with CAIXA’s official confirmation that the payment had been made, the procedural obstacle remained, and my retaliation claim was never reexamined on the merits by an appellate court.

There is another circumstance that has raised questions for me: by then, Eni’s Brazilian assets had already been acquired by Petrobras.

I have no evidence of any interference by Petrobras in the TST’s decision, and I do not present this hypothesis as fact.

The documented fact is this: the proceedings ended without the central issue being reexamined on appeal.

And the original judgment still recorded that I had identified irregularities, reported them to the appropriate persons, and fulfilled my duty as an employee and the Code of Ethics.

The labor proceedings were over.

But the Flinto Case was not.

I then received advice that would change the course of this story:

📌 go back directly to Eni.

Later in 2009, I would submit a new Memorial to Eni’s Board of Directors.

That is where I will resume this chronology next week.

After twenty-five years, my request to Eni remains the same:

🔴 that the facts and the entire body of evidence be submitted to an independent, impartial, and transparent review.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Caixa Statement:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

2️⃣ TST Judgment:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

3️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events - Event 22