How to Confirm Collective Farm Employment Record for a Pension in Ukraine
In modern Ukraine, pension provision for former collective farm workers remains a relevant issue, as many people who worked in agricultural cooperatives during the Soviet period and the early years of Ukraine’s independence face difficulties when applying for a pension. Collective farm employment record often becomes a key element in calculating the insurance record required to qualify for an old-age pension.
The main law governing the granting of old-age pensions is the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” dated 9 July 2003 No. 1058-IV. Under this Law, an old-age pension is granted from the funds of the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU) to persons who have reached retirement age and have accumulated the required insurance record. Collective farm employment, as part of a person’s employment history, is confirmed by specific documents. The Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision” dated 5 November 1991 No. 1788-XII provides that periods of work based on membership in collective farms are included in the employment record regardless of the form of ownership. This is particularly important for millions of Ukrainians who worked in agriculture during the 1970s–1990s.
The primary document used to confirm collective farm employment is the collective farm worker’s employment record book – a special type of employment record book approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated 21 April 1975 No. 310. It contains information on membership in the collective farm, periods of employment, workdays, awards and other aspects of employment. The collective farm worker’s employment record book was maintained by the collective farm’s management board and serves as the primary evidence of the relevant employment record.
If the employment record book is missing or contains inaccuracies, the employment record may be confirmed by alternative documents in accordance with the applicable procedure for confirming employment history. Such documents may include archival certificates, extracts from employment orders, salary records or information from the Register of Insured Persons. If the collective farm has been liquidated, the relevant certificates may be issued by archival institutions or legal successors.
The PFU often refuses to grant an old-age pension due to an insufficient insurance record. For example, if a period of collective farm employment is not included because of formal deficiencies in the documents, a person may become entitled to an old-age pension only upon reaching a higher age (for example, at the age of 63 instead of 60). Such a refusal to grant a pension may be unlawful if the relevant employment record can be properly confirmed.
A woman applied to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa Region seeking an old-age pension from 8 January 2025, taking into account her periods of employment at collective farms from 1983 to 2002. By a decision of the Odesa District Administrative Court dated 16 May 2025, her administrative claim was granted in full.
Despite this, the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kirovohrad Region filed an appeal against the decision of the Odesa District Administrative Court dated 16 May 2025. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance without changes.
The court of first instance confirmed that the period of employment from 1983 to 2002 at the “Rossiya” and “Druzhba” collective farms (formerly the “Czechoslovak Communist Party” collective farm) in the Berezivka District of the Odesa Region must be included in the claimant’s insurance record on the basis of the collective farm worker’s employment record book and archival certificates. The Pension Fund’s actions in refusing to include this period were declared unlawful. The Pension Fund was ordered to reconsider the application for an old-age pension, taking the specified employment record into account in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, and to make the appropriate pension determination.
The arguments relied upon by the Pension Fund that the archival certificates could not be taken into account because the claimant’s patronymic was stated incompletely were rejected by the court, which referred to the priority of the collective farm worker’s employment record book as the primary document confirming employment history.
The court emphasized that deficiencies in the preparation of certificates (including an abbreviated patronymic) do not constitute grounds for refusal, as the information is supported by the employment record book, which records the periods of employment, workdays and membership in the collective farms, as well as by the claimant’s birth certificate.
In addition, responsibility for maintaining employment record books rests with the administration of the relevant enterprises, and deficiencies in their completion cannot deprive an employee of the right to have the relevant periods included in their employment record. Arguments concerning alleged violations of substantive and procedural law were also rejected as unfounded.
The established case law of the Supreme Court is reflected in its judgments dated 20 February 2018 in case No. 234/13910/17, 7 March 2018 in case No. 233/2084/17, 4 March 2020 in case No. 367/945/17, 27 April 2020 in case No. 367/4230/17, 23 September 2021 in case No. 227/4273/16-а, and 6 February 2018 in case No. 677/277/17. These judgments emphasize the priority of the employment record book and the possibility of relying on archival certificates despite formal inaccuracies where such inaccuracies do not disprove the fact of employment.
Collective farm employment constitutes an important part of the employment history of many Ukrainians, and the state is obliged to ensure that such periods are fully taken into account for the purpose of providing adequate pension benefits.
The ARES Law Firm provides qualified legal assistance in cases involving the granting and recalculation of pensions, including disputes concerning preferential pension conditions and the confirmation of employment records. Our lawyers will help collect appropriate evidence of employment, properly formulate claims before the court, substantiate your legal position taking into account current judicial practice and the positions of the Supreme Court, and assist in ensuring the effective enforcement of the court judgment by the Pension Fund.
