Due to the shortened name “Liuba” in the Pension Fund's certificate, work experience was not counted and the pension was denied — the court recognized this as illegal

Deficiencies in document processing made by the employer or archive cannot deprive a person of the right to have their insurance work experience counted. This conclusion was reached by the Poltava District Administrative Court, which obliged the Pension Fund to reconsider the pension application.

The woman successfully appealed in court the Pension Fund's refusal to grant an age pension, which was motivated by the fact that part of her work in the collective farm was not counted towards her insurance experience due to document deficiencies. The Poltava District Administrative Court concluded that an employee cannot bear negative consequences due to errors made by the employer or archival institution during document processing.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied for an age pension. The application was reviewed on the principle of extraterritoriality by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zhytomyr region, which refused to grant the pension due to insufficient insurance experience.

The Main Department of the Pension Fund in Zhytomyr region did not count the period of the woman's work at the Gogol collective farm from August 2, 1982, to January 26, 1984, towards her insurance experience.

The refusal was motivated by the absence in the collective farmer’s employment record book of information about the established annual minimum labor participation (“workdays”), and the archive certificate recorded the employee’s name in a shortened form (“Liuba”), which did not match the full name in the passport.

The plaintiff stated that the employment record book entries were made by the employer, not by her personally, so she cannot be responsible for their correctness. Moreover, the shortened form of the name in archival documents does not mean the documents relate to a different person.

What the court established

The court noted that according to the law, the employment record book is the primary document confirming work experience. At the same time, archival documents in this case do not contradict the information contained in the plaintiff’s employment record book.

The employment record book contained entries about the plaintiff’s hiring at the collective farm on August 2, 1982, her dismissal on January 26, 1984, as well as references to the relevant orders on the basis of which these entries were made.

The court drew attention to the fact that the mere absence in the employment record book of information about the employer-established annual minimum labor participation does not indicate the absence of work experience or failure by the employee to meet such minimum. On the contrary, the employment record book contained information about labor participation, and archival documents also contained information about the number of worked person-days.

Assessing discrepancies in the name spelling, the court noted that the archival institution only reproduces information from the documents submitted to it and cannot change their content. Therefore, the use of the shortened form of the name (“Liuba” instead of the full name) by itself does not prevent counting the disputed period towards insurance experience, since it concerns the same person.

The court in case 440/6940/24 emphasized that improper maintenance of employment documentation by the employer or inaccuracies in archival documents should not have negative consequences for the employee. A person cannot be held responsible for the correctness of the employment record book or other documents that were not personally prepared by them.

Furthermore, the court referred to the legal position of the Supreme Court set out in the ruling dated May 24, 2018, in case No. 490/12392/16-а, according to which deficiencies in filling out the employment record book cannot be grounds for disregarding the corresponding work period when calculating experience for pension purposes.

What the court decided

The Poltava District Administrative Court fully satisfied the claim.

The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zhytomyr region refusing to grant the pension. The court also obliged the Main Department of the Pension Fund in Zhytomyr region to count the plaintiff’s work period at the Gogol collective farm from August 2, 1982, to January 26, 1984, towards her insurance experience and to reconsider the pension application taking into account the legal assessment provided by the court.

In addition, the court ordered the Main Department of the Pension Fund in Zhytomyr region to reimburse the plaintiff 1,211.20 UAH of the paid court fee.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.