Preferential Pension for Metallurgical Crane Operators under List No. 1
The occupation of a metallurgical crane operator belongs to the category of jobs involving harmful and difficult working conditions. Such employees work daily in environments involving high temperatures, metal fumes, noise and vibration, all of which can significantly affect their health. For this reason, the state provides them with the right to an old-age pension on preferential terms under List No. 1 of industries, jobs, occupations and positions approved by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 461 dated 24 June 2016.
Employees working in positions covered by List No. 1, including workers at metallurgical enterprises, are quite often refused recognition of certain periods of employment as preferential service. Such refusals are usually based on formal discrepancies in job titles, the absence of clarifying certificates, or deficiencies in workplace certification documents.
In a similar case, a woman who worked as a Grade 5 crane operator applied to the Pension Fund for an old-age pension on preferential terms but was refused on the grounds that she had not reached the required retirement age. In addition, several periods of her employment were not included in either her general insurance record or preferential service record due to inaccuracies identified in her employment record book and supporting certificates. The applicant disagreed with the decision and challenged it in court.
The court granted the claim and ordered the Pension Fund of Ukraine to award the pension on preferential terms in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision” in the version applicable before 2015. Under those provisions, employees engaged full-time in underground work and work involving particularly harmful and particularly difficult working conditions covered by List No. 1 of industries, jobs, occupations, positions and indicators approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, subject to workplace certification, were entitled to an old-age pension on preferential terms regardless of their last place of employment:
– men – upon reaching the age of 50 and having at least 20 years of employment record, including at least 10 years in the relevant harmful working conditions;
– women – upon reaching the age of 45 and having at least 15 years of employment record, including at least 7 years and 6 months in the relevant harmful working conditions.
However, the dispute involving the female metallurgical crane operator did not end after her pension was awarded. She subsequently applied to the Pension Fund for a pension recalculation because certain periods of her general and preferential service under List No. 1, as well as the period during which she cared for her child until the child reached the age of three, had still not been taken into account.
PJSC “Mining and Processing Plant” and LLC “Foundry and Mechanical Plant” provided clarifying certificates confirming information about her employment record, salary, payment of insurance contributions and other information necessary for pension purposes. Despite this, the Pension Fund refused to grant the application, referring to an alleged interruption in workplace certification, as a result of which certain periods of employment could supposedly not be included in the preferential service record. In addition, the decision stated that the applicant had not been employed full-time in underground work and therefore there were allegedly no grounds for recalculating her pension under the applicable legislation.
The court concluded that deficiencies in employment documentation or delays in workplace certification could not deprive an employee of the right to have periods of work actually performed included in the relevant service record. It was established that the claimant had indeed worked as a metallurgical crane operator under conditions corresponding to List No. 1. In its judgment, the court ordered the Pension Fund to recalculate the pension, taking into account the periods of employment and childcare that had previously been disregarded.
The Pension Fund appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance.
According to the legal position set out by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 19 February 2020 in case No. 520/15025/16-a, the reasons why workplace certification was not conducted cannot in themselves serve as grounds for refusing to include the relevant employment period in the preferential service record or for refusing to grant a pension. Failure to conduct workplace certification, or failure to conduct it in a timely manner by the owner of an enterprise or an authorised body, cannot deprive citizens of their constitutional right to social protection, including the right to an old-age pension on preferential terms. Responsibility for monitoring employers’ compliance with workplace certification requirements rests with the competent state supervisory authorities.
Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance without changes.
Remember that an unlawful refusal by the Pension Fund to recognise preferential service can be successfully challenged in court. The Pension Center provides legal services in cases concerning the granting and recalculation of pensions on preferential terms.
An experienced pension lawyer will help collect evidence confirming employment under List No. 1 or List No. 2, properly formulate the claims, draw the court’s attention to current Supreme Court case law establishing clear legal approaches to similar disputes, and seek effective enforcement of the judgment by the Pension Fund.
Protect your right to a decent pension – every year of work performed under difficult and harmful conditions should be properly recognised and taken into account by the state.
