Preferential Pension for Oil and Gas Workers
Occupations in the oil and gas industry have traditionally been associated with an increased level of risk, significant physical demands, and exposure to hazardous workplace factors. For this reason, Ukrainian legislation provides certain categories of employees with the right to early retirement on preferential terms. These occupations include, in particular, well workover supervisors and drillers, whose positions are included in List No. 2 of industries, jobs, occupations, and positions involving hazardous and arduous working conditions.
In practice, however, exercising this right is often accompanied by difficulties. The main issues involve confirming preferential employment record and having the relevant periods of employment credited toward the insurance record.
The right to a preferential pension for such employees directly depends on having the required length of special employment record. The key issue is confirmation of preferential employment record, meaning proof that the person actually worked under the conditions specified in the relevant lists of industries, jobs, occupations, and positions. In practice, however, the Pension Fund authorities often take a formalistic approach when assessing the documents submitted. Even where an employment record book contains entries confirming work as a driller or well workover supervisor, the Pension Fund may refuse to include the relevant periods in the preferential employment record, citing the absence of clarifying certificates, workplace certification records, or other additional documents.
Confirmation of employment record by means of an employment record book is particularly important in such disputes. Ukrainian legislation recognizes the employment record book as the principal document confirming an employee's work history. If the entries in the employment record book have been properly made and clearly specify the position held and the periods of employment, they are presumed to be reliable. The inability to verify the employer's original records or the liquidation of the employer cannot automatically be held against the employee as grounds for refusing to grant a pension. The adverse consequences of improper record-keeping or failure to conduct workplace certification should not restrict an individual's constitutional right to social protection.
A separate issue arises when part of a person's employment record (after 1992) was acquired at enterprises located in the territory of the Russian Federation. At present, pension authorities refuse to include such periods in the insurance record because, pursuant to Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1328 dated November 29, 2022, "On Withdrawal from the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the Field of Pension Provision", Ukraine withdrew from the above-mentioned Agreement. This Resolution entered into force on December 2, 2022. However, if the employment took place before December 2, 2022, the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the Field of Pension Provision dated March 13, 1992 should still apply when determining whether the disputed period of employment in the Russian Federation is to be included in the insurance record, since the Agreement was in force at the time the individual acquired the relevant employment record. Therefore, such periods should still be credited. However, this generally has to be established in court.
The issue of having periods of employment credited toward the insurance record through court proceedings becomes particularly relevant when the Pension Fund refuses to recognize certain periods because of technical inaccuracies in the wording of a job title. For example, minor differences in the title of a driller or well workover supervisor may become a formal reason for refusing to recognize the relevant period of employment. At the same time, judicial practice confirms that the decisive factor is the actual nature of the work performed and whether it corresponds to the conditions specified in the lists of preferential occupations. If a person actually performed full-time work under hazardous and arduous conditions, the relevant periods should be included in the preferential employment record.
Therefore, confirmation of preferential employment record, confirmation of employment record through an employment record book, and recognition of periods of employment as part of the insurance record through court proceedings remain the key issues in disputes of this category. Judicial practice demonstrates that, where sufficient evidence is available and the employee maintains an active legal position, court proceedings can restore the violated right to a preferential pension and ensure the effective implementation of the social protection guarantees provided by law.
