Pension Refusal Due to Errors in an Employment Record Book: Successful Court Case
Today’s reality sometimes places unfair expectations on employees, including the expectation that they should personally monitor the accuracy of entries made in their employment record books. Such a requirement is not established by law. Nevertheless, despite well-established court practice on this issue, the Pension Fund authorities continue to unlawfully refuse to include certain periods of employment in a person’s insurance record where the relevant entries contain corrections or errors.
The court case of Iryna Bolobolina is a clear example of a situation in which an employee became the victim of an improper administrative approach to employment documentation. Incorrect entries in an employment record book cannot, in themselves, constitute grounds for depriving an employee of the constitutional right to social protection and the right to receive an old-age pension.
Iryna faced such a violation when a significant period of her employment was excluded from her insurance record due to corrections in the date of the employment order. The Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv relied on these corrections and consequently refused to grant her an old-age pension.
However, Iryna considered this decision unfair and contacted us for legal assistance in challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal. Her position was based on the fact that she could not be held responsible for corrections made in her employment record book. Moreover, if the Pension Fund had any doubts regarding the authenticity of the entries in the document, it had the authority to verify the relevant information independently.
After reviewing all the documents and preparing a statement of claim, our lawyers applied to the court seeking cancellation of the Pension Fund’s decision and an order requiring the relevant periods of employment to be included in Iryna’s insurance record. In support of the claim, we argued that responsibility for maintaining employment documentation and ensuring the proper completion of employment records rests with the employer rather than the employee. Administrative errors made by an employer cannot constitute lawful grounds for depriving an employee of the constitutional right to social protection.
In its judgment, the court rejected the position of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the exclusion of certain periods of employment due to technical errors in the date of the employment order. The court determined that an employee is not responsible for the accuracy and completeness of employment records maintained by the employer. Improper completion of the employment record book and other documents resulted from deficiencies in the employer’s record-keeping procedures and could not serve as grounds for denying the employee the constitutional right to social protection and an old-age pension. The court additionally emphasized that Ukrainian legislation does not impose an obligation on employees to supervise how their employers or other authorized persons complete and maintain their employment records. Therefore, an employee should not suffer adverse consequences because of errors or violations committed when completing an employment record book.
The court concluded that the decisive factor for granting a pension is the actual existence of the relevant employment record rather than strict compliance with formal requirements concerning the completion of an employment record book or archival certificates. As a result, Iryna’s claims were granted: the Pension Fund’s decision was cancelled, the disputed periods of employment were included in her insurance record, and she was granted an old-age pension.
