Preferential Pension for Mixing Drum Operators under List No. 1
What is a pension? It is a form of social security provided by the state in recognition of a person’s work throughout their life. At the same time, a pension is an important social guarantee: every person who meets the statutory requirements is entitled to pension benefits. It is widely known that, as a general rule, the right to an old-age pension arises upon reaching the statutory retirement age. However, not everyone knows that certain employees may retire significantly earlier – at the age of 50 or 55, and in certain cases even regardless of age. Such preferential retirement conditions are available to specific categories of employees who have worked in harmful or difficult working conditions. The relevant occupations and types of work are determined by Ukrainian legislation and lists approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
This article discusses pensions for mixing drum operators employed at crushing, roasting, concentrating, pelletizing and charge-preparation plants (workshops) processing ores and non-metallic minerals containing 2% or more crystalline (free) silicon dioxide in their dust. Such work is included in List No. 1.
The duties of a mixing drum operator include, in particular, operating a drum mixer during the crushing, roasting and concentration of ores and non-metallic minerals at processing plants, performing routine maintenance of the mixer during each shift, and participating in scheduled preventive repairs.
When can a mixing drum operator retire?
Under Ukrainian pension legislation, age and insurance record are among the main factors taken into account when determining entitlement to an old-age pension. Employees covered by List No. 1 may generally qualify for a preferential old-age pension upon reaching the age of 50, provided they have the required insurance record. For men, this generally means at least 25 years of insurance record, including at least 10 years of employment in particularly harmful and particularly difficult working conditions covered by List No. 1.
To obtain a pension, a person must apply to the Pension Fund of Ukraine and submit the required documents. One of the most important documents is the employment record book, as it can confirm the relevant periods of employment, including work as a mixing drum operator.
Since this type of work qualifies for preferential treatment, proper confirmation of the relevant employment period is essential for obtaining a pension under List No. 1. In particular, the employment record book should contain an appropriate entry describing the occupation and working conditions. For example: “Employed full-time as a mixing drum operator at a crushing plant processing ores and non-metallic minerals containing 2% or more crystalline (free) silicon dioxide in their dust.”
Unfortunately, not all employees have employment record books that have been completed correctly. In such cases, to confirm the relevant employment period and have it included in the preferential service record, it may be necessary to obtain clarifying certificates from employers or their successors. However, where the employment record book has been properly completed and contains sufficient information, additional certificates should generally not be required merely to confirm the same circumstances.
Nevertheless, the Pension Fund may require clarifying certificates to confirm preferential service even where the employment record book contains the relevant information. Failure to provide such certificates may result in the relevant employment period not being included in the preferential service record and, consequently, in refusal to grant a pension. What can be done in such a situation?
Ukrainian court practice provides grounds for challenging such decisions of the Pension Fund. Courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of the employment record book as a primary document confirming a person’s employment history. If it contains sufficient information to establish the nature of the work performed and the relevant working conditions, the absence of an additional clarifying certificate should not automatically deprive a person of the right to have the corresponding period recognised as preferential service.
An example of judicial practice in which the court applied this approach is the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27 April 2020 in case No. 648/1613/17.
