Errors in the Employment Record Book Are Not Grounds for Refusing a Pension
Errors in the Employment Record Book Are Not Grounds for Refusing a Pension
The employment record book is one of the primary documents confirming a person’s employment history and may be used to establish periods of employment for pension purposes. Traditionally, an employment record book was maintained for each employee by the employer, which was responsible for keeping the document and ensuring that the relevant entries were properly made. Entries could also be made by authorised employees, for example, personnel or HR department staff.
What information should be entered in the employment record book when a person is hired?
1) the employee’s full name;
2) the position or type of work performed;
3) the date of employment;
4) the number and date of the employment order.
When employment is terminated, the relevant records should also contain the necessary information concerning the employee’s dismissal, including:
1) the grounds for termination, with reference to the applicable legal provision where required;
2) the date of termination;
3) the number and date of the termination order;
4) the position, full name and signature of the authorised person;
5) the employer’s seal, where its use was required under the rules applicable at the relevant time.
In addition to requirements concerning the content of employment records, the applicable rules historically established certain formal requirements for completing employment record books, including requirements relating to the manner in which entries were made.
In practice, the Pension Fund of Ukraine may refuse to grant a pension on the grounds that the applicant does not have the required insurance record. This may occur where certain periods of employment are excluded because entries in the employment record book contain formal deficiencies, such as uncertified corrections, inconsistencies in the manner in which entries were made or other technical irregularities. In such cases, the Pension Fund may request clarifying certificates from the former employer or archival institutions confirming the relevant periods of employment.
The problem becomes particularly serious where obtaining such certificates is impossible. Many enterprises that operated during the twentieth century have since been liquidated, while their personnel and employment records may not have been preserved or transferred to archival institutions. As a result, an applicant may have no practical possibility of obtaining additional documents confirming employment. However, this does not necessarily mean that the relevant period must be excluded from the person’s insurance record.
The obligation to properly maintain and complete an employment record book was imposed on the employer and its authorised officials. Therefore, an employee cannot be held responsible for errors made by the employer when completing employment records and should not bear adverse pension consequences merely because the employer failed to comply with the applicable rules.
Moreover, Pension Fund officials cannot professionally determine the identity or similarity of handwriting, the method by which particular entries were made or the writing instruments used to make them, as such issues require specialised expertise and cannot be established merely on the basis of assumptions concerning the appearance of the entries.
The Supreme Court has expressed relevant legal positions in cases No. 548/2056/16-а, No. 687/975/17 and No. 127/13762/17, emphasising the importance of the actual employment circumstances and the principle that employees should not suffer adverse pension consequences because of deficiencies attributable to their employers.
Therefore, formal deficiencies or errors in an employment record book should not automatically constitute grounds for excluding a period of actual employment when determining pension entitlement. If the Pension Fund refuses to grant a pension or recognise a period of employment solely because of such deficiencies, its decision may be challenged before an administrative court.
