In a tragic case that underscores the deep-seated issues within corporate work environments, the family of P.M., a 55-year-old former employee of Metro in Marghera, is suing the company after he died by suicide shortly following his dismissal. P.M. was fired on June 27, 2024, after 27 years of service, for allegedly causing an economic loss of €280 by manipulating customer orders to avoid delivery fees.
According to Metro, the allegations stemmed from incidents where P.M. reportedly suggested customers include red shrimp in their orders, bringing their total to at least €250, the threshold for free shipping. This behavior was cited in 14 separate occurrences as evidence of misconduct, leading to a swift termination. The fallout from this event was dire; merely a week after losing his job, P.M. took his own life on August 11, 2024.
The legal saga is set to unfold with a court hearing scheduled for June 6, 2025, in Venice. P.M.’s family, represented by Leonello Azzarini of the labor union CGIL, is contesting the claim of wrongful termination and is seeking compensation equivalent to 24 months' salary, emphasizing a serious lack of justification for the dismissal.
Mirco Ferrarese from the CGIL Legal Office aptly described the situation: “Assurdo, in realtà faceva un favore all'impresa vendendo di più, specie in un momento in cui l'azienda di grande distribuzione usciva da una crisi e da un sostanziale ridimensionamento,” stressing that P.M. had been a valuable asset to the company, contributing positively even amid its recent financial struggles.
The narrative surrounding P.M.'s termination raises questions about the motivations behind Metro's swift action, particularly when his career had been characterized by integrity and dedication. Workers in the community have resonated with this tragedy, prompting discussions around employee treatment, especially regarding potential internal dynamics at play that may have influenced the management's decision.
P.M.’s family has articulated their concerns, suggesting that the termination was driven by unexplained internal conflicts rather than the reported claims. Furthermore, they argue that the orders in question could be placed directly by customers using an online platform, which means P.M. may not have been solely responsible. There remains skepticism toward Metro’s explanation, and Azzarini reiterated the family's position: "Ribadiamo il dubbio, più che concreto, che il licenziamento sia dovuto a dinamiche interne non note e che non sia realmente giustificato da quanto oggetto di contestazione.”
As the case draws near to its first hearing, the implications of P.M.'s experience are far-reaching. Many in the community see this lawsuit not merely as a quest for monetary compensation but as a pivotal moment to challenge workplace cultures that prioritize profits over employee well-being. The loss of P.M., a man described as someone who viewed Metro as his home and was active in social causes, deeply impacts those who knew him. Ferrarese recalled that, “Il lavoratore era stimato sul posto di lavoro, riteneva la Metro la sua casa, era attivo nel sociale.”
In a work environment increasingly characterized by depersonalization, the family’s determination may serve to inspire others facing unjust termination or similar issues within large corporate structures. Their pursuit of justice extends beyond financial condemnation; it endeavors to restore dignity and respect to P.M., who felt wronged by his employer. As they prepare to present their case in court, hope persists that it could establish a precedent for how companies manage employee relations and highlight the severe consequences that may ensue from mismanagement in employment practices.
This heartbreaking story is a vivid reminder of the significant impact companies can have on their employees’ emotional and mental health, and it accentuates the urgent need for greater transparency, fairness, and humanity in workplace interactions. The actions of large organizations, particularly during sensitive situations like layoffs, warrant scrutiny and could benefit from re-evaluation to ensure that respect for individual dignity remains a fundamental aspect of corporate philosophy.
