Preferential Pension for Hoist Operators under List No. 2 in Ukraine
The issue of granting an old-age pension on preferential terms to representatives of technical professions, particularly hoist operators, remains one of the most complex areas of social security law. The main difficulty lies in proving that the person worked under hazardous and difficult working conditions that entitle them to a reduced retirement age under List No. 2. Current legal practice demonstrates that the territorial bodies of the Pension Fund of Ukraine often take an excessively formalistic approach, disregarding the actual circumstances of a person’s employment and effectively placing responsibility on the employee for deficiencies in documentation or the employer’s failure to fulfil its obligations.
The central element in establishing entitlement to such a pension is the employee’s preferential service record. For hoist operators, a decisive factor is whether their position is included in the Lists of industries, works, professions and positions approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. However, an entry in the employment record book alone is often considered insufficient by the territorial bodies of the Pension Fund of Ukraine. The main issue usually concerns workplace certification based on working conditions. Ukrainian legislation requires preferential service acquired after August 1992 to be confirmed by the results of such workplace certification. In practice, however, many enterprises, particularly during periods of economic transformation or liquidation, either conducted workplace certification late or failed to conduct it altogether.
In this context, court practice is particularly important, as it has developed a mechanism for protecting employees. The Supreme Court of Ukraine has repeatedly emphasised that an employee cannot be deprived of the right to social protection merely because the owner of an enterprise failed to fulfil its obligation to conduct workplace certification. Responsibility for organising and conducting such certification rests with the administration of the enterprise. Therefore, the absence of workplace certification cannot in itself constitute grounds for refusing to count the relevant employment period as preferential service if the hazardous nature of the work is confirmed by other evidence. Courts regard the employment record book as the primary document confirming employment history, and where it clearly indicates the nature of the work performed and such work corresponds to List No. 2, a refusal to grant a pension may be recognised as unlawful.
Another critical issue concerns confirmation of periods of employment in the Russian Federation or other former Soviet states. For many years, legal relations in this area were governed by the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the CIS Member States in the Field of Pension Provision. Despite Ukraine’s withdrawal from certain international agreements and changes in the political and legal environment, pension rights acquired while such agreements were in force may remain subject to legal protection. Periods of employment acquired in other states while the relevant international arrangements were in force may therefore be relevant when calculating insurance and preferential service. Court proceedings often become an effective means of challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal to recognise such periods of employment, particularly where the employment concerned complex industrial facilities outside Ukraine.
Particular attention in court proceedings is given to supplementary employment certificates and primary employment documents. If an enterprise has been liquidated without a legal successor, periods of employment may be confirmed by special commissions; however, their decisions may also become the subject of judicial review. Courts carefully analyse hoist operators’ job descriptions, orders assigning employees to specific machinery, and the nature of the technological processes in which the employee was involved. It is important to understand that an old-age pension on preferential terms is not merely a social payment but a form of compensation for employment under conditions that adversely affect a person’s health. Therefore, restricting the right to such compensation solely because of bureaucratic obstacles may conflict with the constitutional principles of a social state.
In conclusion, to successfully exercise the right to preferential pension provision, a hoist operator may need to be prepared to defend their interests in court. Current court practice provides an important mechanism for challenging formal refusals by the Pension Fund of Ukraine and ensuring that periods of employment under difficult and hazardous conditions are properly taken into account. Judicial proceedings may make it possible not only to have disputed periods counted toward preferential service but also to require the competent pension authority to reconsider the pension claim, recalculate the pension and, where legally justified, make the relevant payments from the date of the person’s initial application. This can ensure effective restoration of the pension rights that were unlawfully denied.
