Can Errors in an Employment Record Book Be Grounds for Refusing a Pension?
Ukrainian legislation establishes clear requirements for maintaining employment record books, which are intended to ensure proper documentation and verification of each employee’s employment history. However, can an employee be held responsible when these requirements are violated by third parties?
Let us examine the key aspects of Ukrainian legislation and determine whether an employee can avoid negative consequences when errors in an employment record book are caused by other persons, using Ms. Havrykova’s case as an example.
Ms. Havrykova applied to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv Region for an old-age pension. However, the Pension Fund refused to grant her the pension, stating that it could not include all periods of employment recorded in her employment record book or her period of education in her insurance record. The main reason was that Ms. Havrykova’s maiden name indicated on the title page of her employment record book and in her education certificate did not match the maiden name stated on her birth certificate. The Pension Fund therefore concluded that the employment record book had been completed in violation of the applicable rules and instructions and refused to grant her an old-age pension.
Ms. Havrykova subsequently became our client, and we decided to protect her rights by filing a lawsuit. We asked the court to declare the Pension Fund’s actions unlawful, require the disputed periods to be included in her insurance record, and ensure that her application for an old-age pension was properly reconsidered.
Our main argument was that an employee cannot be held responsible for completing and maintaining his or her own employment record book. Under Ukrainian legislation, this responsibility rests with the employer. Therefore, an employee should not suffer adverse consequences, such as the exclusion of periods of employment from the insurance record, merely because the employment record book contains certain errors or deficiencies.
After considering the arguments of both parties, the court agreed with our position and granted the claim. The court noted that the deficiencies referred to by the Pension Fund, including an unclear stamp and the incorrect spelling in Russian of the claimant’s maiden name, concerned matters for which the authorized representative of the employer was responsible rather than the claimant herself. Accordingly, the court ordered the disputed periods to be included in Ms. Havrykova’s insurance record and required the Pension Fund to reconsider her application for an old-age pension.
After the court judgment entered into force, we submitted it to the Pension Fund for enforcement. The Pension Fund subsequently included all the relevant periods in Ms. Havrykova’s insurance record and granted her an old-age pension. In addition, she received the pension arrears accumulated during the period in which the case was being considered by the court.
The court judgment is available at the following link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/107318652.
