Ep57 - What does the market say about me?

Yesterday, I showed a 2010 court document in which Eni presented a new explanation for my dismissal from AGIP do Brasil.

But one question had remained unanswered for years:

📌 Why was I unable to rebuild my executive career?

I had experience, professional results and extensive knowledge of the fuel industry.

Yet after my dismissal, my career changed dramatically.

Then a particularly important document emerged.

An executive from Royal FIC, where I worked from Aug 2002 to Feb 2003, put in writing what, according to him, was circulating in the job market:

🔷 “The job market claims that Douglas Linares Flinto was dismissed from Agip Brasil because of his involvement in the internal fraud and acts of corruption that occurred in 2001 within the Regional Sales Management in Cuiabá”.

Read that again.

According to that statement, the market was not saying that I had reported the irregularities.

It was saying that I had been involved in them.

Yet Royal FIC hired me because, according to the same document, it believed my account:

📌 that I was the whistleblower who reported the facts in accordance with the company’s Code of Ethics.

The executive added that while he worked with me, “there was never anything that discredited me”.

That document changed my understanding of what might have happened to my career.

There was now a written record that an extremely damaging version about me was circulating in the job market.

Who created this narrative?

Who spread it?

How far did it circulate?

I do not have a document that allows me to answer those questions definitively.

I do not present as fact what I cannot prove.

But one thing can be documented:

🔹 the statement records that this information was circulating in the job market.

And that raises an unavoidable question:

🔴 What realistic chance does an executive have to rebuild his career when the market associates him with the very fraud and corruption he says he reported?

In Brazil, the informal circulation of information intended to prevent workers from finding new employment is often described as “blacklisting”.

Brazilian Labor Courts have addressed allegations involving this type of practice.

Almost ten years later, a possible explanation was emerging for what had profoundly changed my professional life.

But the consequences went further.

They include what I consider the “loss of a chance” at Petrobras, as well as the effects on my assets, Social Security contributions and, years later, my retirement benefits.

That is what I will show tomorrow.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Statement by the Royal FIC executive:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

2️⃣ VEJA article on “blacklisting” in the Brazilian job market:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

3️⃣ Brazilian Superior Labor Court (TST) decisions on alleged “blacklisting”:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

 

Ep56 - Eni finally responded. But...

 

Yesterday, I explained that after years of seeking a response from Eni, I took my case to its stakeholders, including major shareholders.

I continued to ask for the same thing:

📌 an independent investigation of the facts and documents.

In 2010, ENI finally reacted.

But not with the investigation I expected.

The company filed a lawsuit against me and the Instituto Brasileiro de Ética nos Negócios (Brazilian Institute for Business Ethics) - an action I consider a hashtag#SLAPP - seeking €15 million for alleged defamation and damage to reputation.

That lawsuit introduced something crucial to this story.

Eni formally presented what I consider the “2nd version” of the events leading to my dismissal.

According to its filing, investigations conducted by Eni had found no retaliation, violation of law or breach of its Code of Ethics.

Eni then maintained that my dismissal was justified by my alleged “reticent and uncooperative conduct” during confidential investigations at the Brazilian subsidiary, allegedly undermining the relationship of trust.

This matters because this was Eni’s own version presented in judicial proceedings.

And it should be compared with earlier documents.

🔹 In 2002, the Brazilian subsidiary’s CEO had presented what I consider the “1st version” of my dismissal: “an administrative and organizational restructuring”.

🔹 In 2003, before the Brazilian Labor Court, AGIP do Brasil argued that the company had the right to terminate an employment contract at any time.

🔹 In 2010, before an Italian court, a much more specific explanation emerged: my dismissal was said to be related to my alleged conduct during confidential internal investigations.

So what was the real reason for my dismissal?

And where did Eni obtain the information supporting this version?

Was it the result of an independent investigation by headquarters?

Or was it provided by the former Brazilian subsidiary?

After years of asking Eni to examine the documents, its judicial filing became another document to be examined.

I ask for something simple:

📌 compare the versions.

Compare what AGIP do Brasil stated through its CEO and before the Brazilian courts with what Eni later stated before an Italian court.

And consider one fundamental element: in my labor judgment, the judge recorded findings concerning the irregularities I reported and my conduct in relation to the Code of Ethics.

Then draw your own conclusion.

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 E-mail CEO AGIP do Brasil (2002):
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English

2️⃣ ENI lawsuit - 2010:
🔹 Italian
🔹 English

3️⃣ Judgment in my labor case against AGIP do Brasil:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English