Preferential Pension for Metallurgical Slag Workers under List No. 1

Today, hard work at industrial enterprises often remains undervalued, making the issue of preferential pension provision particularly important. This is especially relevant for workers in the metallurgical industry who are exposed daily to extreme working conditions, including high temperatures, toxic gases, heavy physical workloads and health risks.

One such occupation is that of a slag worker in a metallurgical furnace repair shop – a specialist whose work involves direct contact with molten slag, hot metals and aggressive industrial environments. According to List No. 1, approved by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 162 dated 11 March 1992 (Section III, Subsection 2a, code 1030200a-19622), such work is classified as particularly harmful. This List includes occupations where working conditions may lead to rapid deterioration of health, including chronic respiratory diseases, burns, musculoskeletal disorders and increased cancer risks. To qualify for a preferential “slag worker’s pension”, pursuant to Article 114 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” No. 1058-IV dated 9 July 2003, an employee must have at least 10 years of service under particularly harmful and particularly difficult working conditions covered by List No. 1 and reach the age of 50 for men (or 45 for women). The total insurance record must be at least 25 years. Such preferential service is confirmed on the basis of workplace certification, which must be carried out at least once every five years in accordance with the Procedure approved by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 442 dated 1 August 1992.

The judgment of the Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court in case No. 280/4366/25 dated 8 September 2025 became an important precedent offering hope to thousands of workers in similar circumstances.

Facts of the Case and Claims

The claimant, an employee of PJSC “Zaporizhstal”, worked as a “slag worker in a metallurgical furnace repair shop” from 21 August 1995 to 15 June 2015, including the disputed period from 26 May 2000 to 5 April 2001. This period of almost 11 months was not included in his preferential service record because workplace certification had not been carried out during that period. The initial workplace certification was conducted on 25 May 1995 (Order No. 73), while the subsequent certification was carried out only on 6 April 2001 (Order No. 160). The enterprise did not extend the validity of the previous certification despite Letter No. 02-340 dated 7 June 2000 from the Social Protection Department of the Zaporizhzhia Regional State Administration, which permitted such an extension.

On 27 May 2025, the claimant filed a lawsuit with the Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court against the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia Region. He requested that the refusal to include the disputed period in his “service under particularly harmful and particularly difficult working conditions” under List No. 1 be declared unlawful, that the Pension Fund be ordered to include this period in his preferential service record, and that his pension be recalculated from 20 October 2024, the date on which his old-age pension on preferential terms was initially awarded.

The claimant’s arguments were based on:

• Certificate No. 85 issued by PJSC “Zaporizhstal” on 10 January 2025, confirming employment in a position covered by List No. 1 (code 1030200a-19622 under Resolution No. 162 and position 3.2a under Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 36 dated 16 January 2003).
• The employment record book containing records of the claimant’s employment.
• The conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 520/15025/16-a dated 19 February 2020, which established that failure to conduct workplace certification in a timely manner due to the employer’s fault cannot deprive an employee of the right to preferential service. This legal position is applicable to List No. 1 in the same way as to List No. 2.

The defendant objected to the claim, referring to the absence of workplace certification during the disputed period and arguing that there were no grounds for including that period in the preferential service record. The claimant’s total insurance record amounted to 33 years, 1 month and 19 days, including 18 years, 10 months and 2 days of preferential service excluding the disputed period. The Pension Fund argued that it had acted in accordance with Law No. 1058-IV. The case was considered under the simplified procedure in written proceedings pursuant to Articles 258 and 262 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. Judge Yu. V. Kalashnyk took into account her absence from 1 August to 6 September 2025 due to annual leave, and the judgment was issued on 8 September 2025.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the applicable legal framework, emphasising the constitutional principles set out in Articles 8, 19 and 46 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantee social protection and establish the fundamental requirements governing the exercise of public authority. Pension legislation, including Laws No. 1788-XII and No. 1058-IV, provides that preferential service is determined taking into account workplace certification, while responsibility for conducting such certification rests with the employer under paragraph 4 of Workplace Certification Procedure No. 442.

The key argument was the legal conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: failure to conduct workplace certification, or failure to conduct it in a timely manner due to the employer’s fault, cannot serve as grounds for refusing to recognise an employee’s preferential service. Responsibility lies with the employer rather than the employee. The court also referred to paragraph 4.2 of the Procedure for Applying Lists No. 1 and No. 2, under which workplace certification remains valid for five years provided that working conditions have not changed. In the claimant’s case, the working conditions remained unchanged, and therefore the results of the 1995 certification were relevant when assessing his entitlement to preferential service.

The court also referred to European human rights principles, including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which protected rights must be practical and effective rather than theoretical or illusory. The court established that the claimant had submitted all available documents, including his employment record book, the employer’s certificate and workplace certification orders. Under part 2 of Article 77 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the burden of proving the lawfulness of the refusal rested with the Pension Fund, which failed to establish sufficient grounds for excluding the disputed period.

The Court Decided:

To grant the claims of PERSON_1 against the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia Region.

To declare unlawful the refusal to include the period from 26 May 2000 to 5 April 2001 in the claimant’s preferential service record under List No. 1.

To order the Pension Fund to include this period in the claimant’s “service under particularly harmful and particularly difficult working conditions” and to recalculate and pay the pension from 20 October 2024, taking into account the corresponding additional payments.

To recover the court fee of UAH 1,211.20 from the Pension Fund.

Significance for Social Protection

This judgment not only restored the pension rights of an individual employee but also demonstrates an important approach that may be relevant to other workers facing similar problems. In particular, a worker should not automatically lose the right to have a period of hazardous employment included in preferential service merely because the employer failed to conduct workplace certification properly or on time.

Remember: an unlawful refusal by the Pension Fund to include periods of employment in the preferential service record can be effectively challenged in court.

The Pension Center provides qualified legal assistance in cases involving the granting and recalculation of pensions on preferential terms.

Our lawyers will help you collect appropriate evidence of employment under List No. 1 or List No. 2, properly formulate your claims, substantiate your legal position taking into account current court practice and the legal positions of the Supreme Court, and assist with the effective enforcement of the judgment by the Pension Fund.

Protect your right to a decent pension – every year of hard work should be properly recognised by the state.

Source: [Court Decision] https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130040128.