Preferential Pension for Long-Distance Telephone Operators under List No. 2

Within Ukraine’s pension system, many employees who worked under conditions involving hazardous factors encounter difficulties when applying for a preferential pension. This is particularly relevant to professions included in List No. 2, which covers jobs involving difficult and hazardous working conditions. One such profession is that of a long-distance telephone operator, for whom the right to a pension depends on proper confirmation of preferential service. In this article, we examine the key aspects of such cases, the legal grounds for confirming employment history, common reasons for a refusal to grant a pension, and the legal assistance available for challenging such decisions.

Legal Grounds for a Preferential Pension under List No. 2

Under Article 114 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” No. 1058-IV, employees engaged in work involving hazardous and difficult working conditions and whose professions are covered by List No. 2 may qualify for an early old-age pension, provided that the statutory requirements concerning age, total insurance record and preferential service are satisfied. The relevant lists of industries, works, professions, positions and indicators are approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

The profession of a long-distance telephone operator may qualify for preferential pension treatment where the relevant position and working conditions meet the requirements of the applicable List No. 2. In practice, however, the Pension Fund of Ukraine may refuse to count certain periods as preferential service, referring to the absence of workplace certification or insufficient documentary confirmation of employment. Workplace certification is the responsibility of the employer under the applicable Ukrainian regulations. Ukrainian court practice has repeatedly addressed situations where an employee’s pension rights were affected by an employer’s failure to properly conduct or document such certification.

A certificate confirming the employee’s preferential service, issued in accordance with the applicable procedure for confirming employment history, may constitute an important supporting document. Where such a certificate cannot be obtained, other evidence may be relevant, including archival records, primary employment documents and, where necessary, evidence examined in court proceedings.

Analysis of Court Case No. 480/9167/24

The case concerned a long-distance telephone operator who applied for an old-age pension on preferential terms. The Pension Fund refused to recognise the relevant employment periods as preferential service, referring, among other matters, to issues concerning workplace certification and confirmation of hazardous working conditions. The claimant filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to have the Pension Fund’s decision declared unlawful and to restore the pension rights affected by the refusal.

The parties’ positions included the following:

• The claimant relied on entries in the employment record book and other documents confirming employment in a profession covered by List No. 2. The claimant argued that responsibility for conducting workplace certification rested with the employer rather than the employee and that deficiencies attributable to the employer should not automatically deprive an employee of pension rights.
• The Pension Fund referred to the statutory requirements governing confirmation of hazardous working conditions and preferential service, including requirements concerning workplace certification.

The court’s decision: the court upheld the claimant’s position regarding the unlawfulness of the Pension Fund’s refusal and assessed the available evidence concerning the disputed periods of employment.

Key conclusions relevant to similar pension disputes:

• Responsibility for organising and conducting workplace certification rests with the employer rather than the employee.
• When determining entitlement to preferential service, the Pension Fund and the courts must assess the available evidence concerning the employee’s actual work, position and working conditions rather than relying exclusively on formal deficiencies in individual documents.
• The constitutional right to social protection must be taken into account when assessing whether formal documentary deficiencies justify restricting a person’s pension rights.

This case illustrates the importance of an individual assessment of the employee’s documents and actual working conditions when resolving disputes concerning List No. 2. Similar principles may be relevant to long-distance telephone operators and other employees whose professions were associated with hazardous or difficult working conditions.

How to Challenge a Refusal to Grant a Preferential Pension

If the Pension Fund of Ukraine refuses to grant a preferential pension, the following steps may be appropriate:

1. Review the Pension Fund decision. It is important to determine precisely which periods were excluded and the legal and documentary grounds cited by the Pension Fund.
2. Collect supporting documents. These may include the employment record book, certificates confirming preferential service, workplace certification documents, archival records, employment orders and other primary documents.
3. Challenge the refusal. Depending on the circumstances, the Pension Fund’s decision may be challenged administratively and/or before an administrative court within the applicable statutory time limits.
4. Court proceedings. A properly prepared administrative claim should identify the disputed periods of employment, the applicable List No. 2 provisions, available evidence and the legal grounds for challenging the Pension Fund’s decision.
5. Implementation of the judgment. Following a favourable final judgment, further legal assistance may be required to ensure that the Pension Fund properly implements the court’s findings and recalculates or grants the pension in accordance with the judgment.

Our Legal Services: Comprehensive Assistance with Preferential Pensions

Our law firm provides legal assistance in matters involving preferential pensions under List No. 2, including cases concerning long-distance telephone operators. We assist clients in challenging Pension Fund refusals and confirming disputed periods of preferential service.

Our services include:

• Legal consultation. Assessment of your employment history, preferential service and available documents.
• Collection of evidence. Preparation of requests for certificates confirming employment and preferential service, archival searches and analysis of other supporting documents.
• Administrative appeals. Preparation of complaints and legal representation in communications with the Pension Fund of Ukraine.
• Court representation. Preparation of an administrative claim, development of the legal position, representation in court and, where necessary, appellate proceedings.
• Remote legal services. Online legal assistance is available to clients residing in different regions of Ukraine and abroad.

Our pension lawyers analyse each case individually, taking into account the employee’s profession, period of employment, applicable version of List No. 2, workplace certification documents, employment records and current Ukrainian court practice. If the Pension Fund has refused to recognise your preferential service, such a refusal may be challenged where there are sufficient legal and documentary grounds.

A preferential pension under List No. 2 is an important social guarantee for people who worked under hazardous and difficult working conditions. Problems with workplace certification or other employment documents should be carefully assessed rather than automatically treated as grounds for denying pension rights. If you have received a refusal to grant a preferential pension, professional legal analysis can help determine whether the Pension Fund’s decision can be successfully challenged.