If a citizen goes to court to confirm the length of service (it does not matter whether it took place before or after registration in the accounting system), then he has the right to present any evidence confirming the length of service, including the testimony of witnesses.
When working in special conditions
It is more difficult to solve the issue of confirming the length of service and the nature of work in special working conditions that give the right to early retirement benefits (special length of service).
Lists of relevant jobs, professions, positions, specialties and institutions (organizations) and the rules for calculating periods of work (activity) and the appointment of the specified pension are approved by the Government Russian Federation.
The Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia, in turn, has been granted the right, on the proposal of the federal executive authorities and in agreement with the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, to establish the identity of the names of professions workers and professions, taking into account which the right to preferential pension provision is granted, as well as the identity positions and organizations (structural divisions) in relation to all categories of employees for whom an old-age labor pension is established ahead of schedule in accordance with Articles 27 and 28 of the Law on Labor Pensions (do not confuse with the identity of the actual work performed, which is set on a case-by-case basis). The basis for establishing identity can be documents submitted by the federal executive authorities, and information from the individual (personalized) record of the insured person, from which it should be clear that the nature of work by profession (position) is similar to the nature of work by profession (position) provided for in Articles 27 and 28 of the Law or the Lists of relevant types of work.
In practice, situations often arise when pension fund refuse early assignment of an old-age pension for work in special working conditions due to the insufficiency of information on periods contained in the work book of the employee labor activity and the inability to confirm them with other documents; inconsistencies between the name of the position (profession) in the work book of the employee and the name of the position (profession) that gives the right to such a pension; the absence of the necessary certificates clarifying the working conditions and the nature of the work performed (including from successor organizations and archival institutions); the absence of the necessary information on the insured person in the data of an individual personified record.
In accordance with the List of Documents approved by the Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia and the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation dated February 27, 2002 No. 16 / 19pa, to the application of a citizen who applied for an old-age labor pension in accordance with Articles 27 and 28 of the Law on Labor Pensions, if necessary, documents must be attached confirming the nature of the work performed or working conditions, giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension.
ü The procedure for confirming periods of work giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension was approved by Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated March 31, 2011 No. 258n.
When it comes to period before registration the insured in the accounting system if there are no requirements for indicators of the nature of work and working conditions in the Lists, and the work book contains sufficient information about the production, profession (position) of the employee, then additional documents confirming special experience is not required.
Sometimes confirmation is required not only of the profession or position, but also of indicators of working conditions. The peculiarity of the list of professions (positions) of Lists No. 1 and 2 is that their full value in some cases is determined not only by the name of the profession (position), but also by the exact indication of the labor function, production operation. Sometimes the labor function depends on the direct employment of the employee in the technological units provided for by the Lists. Often the profession of an employee is determined not only by its name, but also by an indication of the name of the machines, mechanisms, units operated or serviced by the employee, as well as the nature of the work performed on them. Important are the requirements for those professions and positions that are determined by the place (object), structural subdivision of work, characterizing the conditions of the working environment.
In cases where the work book does not contain all the necessary information or if the legislation provides for additional factors (except for the names of professions and positions) for the early appointment of a pension, the employer issues the employee a clarifying certificate on the nature of the work performed by him, which indicates on the basis of which documents she issued. The certificate must confirm the identity of the work performed the one provided for in the Lists (in this case, data on the job responsibilities of the professions of workers from the Unified Tariff and Qualification Directory of Works and Professions of Employees can be used).
Basic documents for clarifying information are:
Orders on assigning an employee to certain workshops, sections, equipment, staffing, job attestation cards for working conditions, accounting for actual employment in jobs that give the right to early retirement (where necessary for specialized repair services and workshops), job and work instructions , technological regulations, an inventory list of the main equipment, a safety briefing book, task logs, a technical passport for equipment and other documents of the enterprise confirming the fact of working in hazardous conditions;
When the necessary documents have not been preserved at the enterprise, but for a number of years the production technology and equipment have not changed, the nature of work and working conditions of employees have not changed, to confirm the special experience, you can use the documents valid at the enterprise in a given period of time (however, in this case the immutability of equipment, technology, etc. requires additional confirmation);
To confirm the indicators of working conditions, the conclusions of the bodies for the examination of working conditions can be used ( workplace attestation cards for working conditions). So, according to paragraph 22 Clarifications of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated May 22, 1996 No. 5"On the procedure for applying the Lists of industries, jobs, professions, positions and indicators that give the right to an old-age pension in connection with special working conditions and a pension for long service" in cases where the "preferential" pension Lists provide not only the names of the profession or positions, but also indicators of working conditions, characterized by the presence in the air of the working area of harmful substances of certain hazard classes, then when establishing the right of an employee to retire due to special working conditions, if necessary, conclusions are given by the bodies of the State Expertise of Working Conditions;
The basis for attributing to a specific production, provided for by the Lists, may be founding documents, licenses to carry out certain types of activities, certificates of works (services), a certificate of registration in the state register of hazardous production facilities, technological regulations, an OKVED code assigned to an enterprise, documents of planning and production departments, characterizing the structural unit by production characteristics, ETKS, each issue of which represents a list of professions for one or more industries. The nature of production can be judged by the names of structural units (shops, sections, etc.). The issue of classifying a specific production as a production, employment in which entitles to pension benefits, can be considered in accordance with All-Russian classifier economic activity, entered into force on January 1, 2003, and for the period before that date - in accordance with the All-Russian Classifier of Economic Activities, Products and Services and the All-Union Classifier of Industries of the National Economy. Production is understood as the production of products provided for by the Lists, regardless of whether the organization (enterprise) as a whole or only a workshop, section, department, etc., is engaged in the production of these products.
Often, courts considering cases related to the confirmation of the employment of an employee in certain conditions reject the arguments of the Pension Fund that the nature of the work must be confirmed by some specific documents. So, for example, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the Ruling dated March 10, 2006 in case No. 46-В06-3 indicated: “The defendant’s argument in the complaint that the documents examined by the court are not enough to award the plaintiff an early retirement pension, since work in the field in the above period is not confirmed by the relevant orders of the organization, in this case it cannot be taken into account, since it has been established that these documents were destroyed due to the expiration of the storage period, therefore, this circumstance, being independent of the plaintiff, does not deprive her of the right to receive a preferential pension by a court decision.
In accordance with the previous procedure for confirming work experience (valid until 01.01.2010, the version of paragraph 9 of Article 30 of the Law on Labor Pensions allows the application of the previously existing procedure for confirming the length of service) and the current Rules for calculating and confirming the length of service for establishing labor pensions dated July 24, 2002 No. 555 and Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated March 31, 2011 No. 258n, special length of service (nature of work) cannot be confirmed when the employee directly applies to the Pension Fund witness testimony(except in cases of loss of documents as a result of emergency situations ).
However, before January 1, 2010, when considering this category of cases in the courts, the judges proceeded from the following position: “the nature of the work can be confirmed by witness testimony, since the pension legislation does not contain any restrictions in the methods of proof and the court has the right to take into account any means evidence provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, including the testimony of witnesses.
On January 1, 2010, the amendments introduced by Federal Law No. 213-FZ of July 24, 2009 to the Law on Labor Pensions came into force. Paragraph 3 of article 13 was supplemented by a provision on the inadmissibility of confirming the nature of the work by the testimony of witnesses.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was not slow to give its interpretation of this innovation. In the Review of legislation and judicial practice for the second quarter of 2010 (question 4) he pointed out: “... after January 1, 2010, when considering a dispute on recognizing the right to an early appointment of a labor pension and determining the range of acceptable means of proof to determine the nature of work, the court should be guided by the provisions contained in paragraph 3 of Art. 13 federal law dated December 17, 2001 No. 173-FZ “On labor pensions in the Russian Federation” (as amended by Federal Law dated July 24, 2009 No. 213-FZ) ... the court is not entitled to accept the testimony of witnesses as admissible evidence of the nature of the work. Later, the Supreme Court also consolidated its position in the Decree of the Plenum dated 12/11/2012 No. 30 “On the practice of court consideration of cases related to the realization of citizens' rights to labor pensions”.
It remains unclear how, in this case, the phrase from par. 4 p. 12 Art. 30 of the Law on Labor Pensions (“... the procedure for confirming the length of service, including the length of service in the relevant types of work ..., which was established and valid before the date of entry into force of this Federal Law”, is applied, given that in force before 01/01/2002 The Law of the Russian Federation of November 20, 1990 No. 340-1 “On State Pensions in the Russian Federation” did not prohibit the use of witness testimony to confirm the nature of work (experience in the relevant types of work). Is it possible, referring to par. 4 p. 12 Art. 30, to resort to the testimony of witnesses when proving in court the “preferential” pension experience earned before January 1, 2002?
It is also not clear how legitimately the controversial norm from paragraph 3 of Article 13 (in its interpretation given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation), which regulates the interaction of a citizen with the Pension Fund, can be extended to the trial, whether this violates the constitutional rights of citizens to judicial protection. And if the rule on the prohibition of the use of witness testimony should also be applied, if necessary, to confirm the nature of the work that took place before the introduction of this ban (that is, before 01/01/2010), then does this not contradict the principle of legal certainty in pension legislation, to which Constantly refers to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation?
Without answers to the above questions, the Supreme Court's opinion that it is impossible to use witnesses' testimonies does not seem to be entirely convincing.
As well as when confirming the general experience, periods of work in special conditions after registration citizen in the system of individual (personalized) accounting confirmed on the basis information of individual (personalized) accounting.
The absence of such information should not be a reason for refusing to set off in the "preferential" retirement experience certain periods of work, since the correctness, completeness and timeliness of reflecting information for employees in the personalized accounting system is a joint task of the insurer (pension authority) and the insured (employer), and not the employee.
Thus, in accordance with Federal Law No. 167-FZ of December 15, 2001 “On Compulsory Pension Insurance in the Russian Federation” (Article 14) and Federal Law No. 27-FZ of April 1, 1996 “On Individual (Personalized) accounting in the system of compulsory pension insurance” (Article 11), the employer is obliged to submit to the territorial bodies of the Pension Fund the documents necessary for maintaining individual (personalized) records, as well as for assigning and paying pensions (in particular, information indicating the periods of activity, included in the specialty). The bodies of the Pension Fund, in turn, are empowered to check employers' documents related to the appointment and payment of pensions, the provision of information on individual (personalized) records for persons working for him; demand and receive from employers Required documents, references and information on issues arising during inspections; require the heads and other officials of the audited organizations to eliminate the identified violations; correct (correct) the accounting information based on the results of the check.
In the light of the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 10, 2007 No. 9-P, we can talk about the inadmissibility of imposing liability on employees (in the form of deprivation or reduction of labor pension (including early) for failure to fulfill their duties by other subjects of the mandatory pension system insurance (by the employer - for the timely provision of information necessary for the early appointment of a pension; by the Pension Fund body - for monitoring the correctness and timeliness of the employer providing information for employees).
Therefore, when applying to the court, the employee has the right to present any evidence not prohibited by law of the nature of his work, which took place even after registration in the system of individual (personalized) accounting.
According to the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 11, 2012 No. 30, “in the event of a citizen’s disagreement with the refusal of the pension authority to include in the special length of service, the period of work subject, in the opinion of the plaintiff, to be included in the special length of service, it must be taken into account that the issue on the type (type) of the institution (organization), the identity of the functions performed by the claimant, the conditions and nature of the activity those jobs (positions, professions) that give the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension should be decided by the court based on the specific circumstances of each case established at the court session (the nature and specifics, the conditions of the work carried out by the plaintiff, the functional duties performed by him in the positions held and professions, workload, taking into account the goals and objectives, as well as the activities of the institutions, organizations in which he worked, etc.)”.
In some cases, confirmation is required permanent employment on the relevant types of work (for example, in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Rules of July 11, 2002 No. 516, periods of work performed constantly during the full working day are counted in the special experience, unless otherwise provided by these Rules or other regulatory legal acts) .
The duration of a full working day (shift) is determined based on the normal or reduced working hours in accordance with Labor Code RF. Provided at the same time individual employees special breaks for heating and rest, due to technology, organization of production or climatic conditions, are included in working hours.
The concept of a full working day is contained in paragraph 5 of the Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated May 22, 1996 No. 29. It refers to the performance of work in the working conditions provided for by the Lists, at least 80 percent of working time. At the same time, the specified time includes the time for performing preparatory and auxiliary work, and for workers performing work with the help of machines and mechanisms, also the time for performing repair work current nature and work on technical operation equipment. The specified time may include the time for performing work performed outside the workplace in order to ensure basic labor functions. If employees, due to a reduction in production volumes, worked part-time working week but performed full-time work giving the right to a pension due to special working conditions, then a special seniority, giving the right to a pension in connection with special working conditions, is calculated by him on the basis of the time actually worked.
To confirm permanent full-time employment, journals and timesheets, personal accounts, etc. can be used.
At the same time, in line with methodological recommendations on conducting documentary (on-site) verifications of the accuracy of information about the periods of work giving the right to early retirement benefits under Lists No. 1 and 2 "approved by the Deputy Governor of the State Institution - the PFR Department for Moscow and the Moscow Region on April 20, 2006:" if the organization or its specific subdivision (workshop, section, etc.) worked stably, without downtime, then there is no need to check the permanent employment of workers accepted for permanent work (practically for the period up to 1992, the stability of work in industry, construction and transport was observed).
ü As an example of judicial practice on the issue of whether it is necessary to confirm permanent employment during periods of work before 1992, the conclusion made by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Ruling No. 81-B11-9 of January 20, 2012 is not without interest.
Example 1. In the employee's work book there is a record that he worked in the profession "tinker", in fact, he performed the work of a tinker in a hot way.
Section III “Metallurgical production” of List No. 1 provides for the profession “hot tinkers”, while the condition for assigning a preferential pension is their employment in rolling, wheel-rolling, bandage-rolling, fork-rolling, tinning, tinning, galvanizing and lead production, production of rail fasteners, cutting and cleaning of hot metal, heat treatment, production of calibrated metal.
In this case, the employee needs to confirm: the compliance of the duties performed with the duties of the hot tinker profession contained in the List (they can be found in the Unified Tariff and Qualification Reference Book of Works and Professions of Workers, Issue 2, approved by Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated November 15, 1999 No. 45 ); performance of the work indicated in the List constantly for a full working day (time log); the affiliation of the production in which he was employed as indicated above (using, for example, the certificates of work that the enterprise has, the OKVED code assigned to the enterprise).
Example 2 . The Pension Fund refused to count in the special experience, giving the right to early retirement, the time of work as a foreman of the main production area at the processing plant. The peculiarity of the production was to work with substances characterized by high radioactivity. Employees employed in it must be retired according to Schedule No. 1, section XXII - “Work with radioactive substances, sources of ionizing radiation, beryllium and rare earth elements”, position code 12201000-17546 - “Workers, managers and specialists permanently employed in work with radioactive substances activity in the workplace of more than 10 millicuries of radium-226 or an equivalent amount of radioactive substances in terms of radiotoxicity and on the repair of equipment under these conditions.
In this case, the employee was required to confirm the indicators of working conditions at the workplace (radioactivity over 10 millicuries of radium-226 or an equivalent amount of radioactive substances in terms of radiotoxicity).
It turned out to be difficult for the employee to collect all the documents requested by the pension provision authority, primarily due to the fact that by the time he reached retirement age, the enterprise had ceased operations, many documents were not archived, and some were completely absent.
To confirm the working conditions at the workplace, the employee submitted to the court the sanitary and hygienic characteristics of the working conditions of another employee that he had at his disposal (it describes the working conditions of all departments of the enterprise), as well as a certification card for his workplace in terms of working conditions.
The fact that the sanitary and hygienic characteristics of working conditions and the attestation card were drawn up later than the period of work not included in the special experience, the court did not consider as grounds for rejecting these documents as evidence, since information that manufacturing process was subsequently changed, the court was not presented.
The court also rejected the arguments of the pension authority that the documents submitted by the employee were not sufficient, pointing out that “the absence of documents directly indicating the nature of the work performed and the conditions under which it was carried out, such as: instructions (duties), a sanitary passport for the right work with sources of ionizing radiation, orders for admission to work with radioactive substances, a sanitary and epidemiological register of accounting (transfer) of radioactive substances at the workplace, cannot be grounds for dismissing the claim, since the responsibility for their publication and storage was not the responsibility of the plaintiff ".
The current legislation also offers the following options for solving the problem of non-crediting in the length of service, which gives the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension, which are relevant in cases when the employee has not yet reached retirement age:
- Appeal of the employee directly to the pension authority with an application for clarification (correction) of information on the length of service until 01/01/2002 contained in his individual personal account (reason - paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Procedure for adjusting the information of individual (personalized) accounting and clarification of individual personal accounts of insured persons in terms of work (insurance) length of service acquired before January 1, 2002, approved by Resolution of the Board of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation of December 14, 2005 No. 246p).
!!! What is - see in the section "Explanation to citizens of their pension rights. Preventive measures to eliminate violations of pension rights”.
- An employee’s application to the Pension Fund body or to the court with a request to correct personalized accounting information in terms of assigning a preferential profession code to disputed periods of work (the basis is Article 14 of the Federal Law of April 1996 No. 27-FZ “On individual (personalized) accounting in the system of Pension Insurance", clause 64. Instructions on the procedure for maintaining individual (personalized) records of information about insured persons, approved by Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated December 14, 2009 No. 987n).
According to the Decree of the Board of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation of July 31, 2006 No. 192p “On the forms of documents for individual (personalized) accounting in the system of compulsory pension insurance”, periods of work in special working conditions that give the right to early appointment of a pension are assigned the so-called. "preferential" code (when they are reflected in the accounting system). Accordingly, if the Pension Fund reflected these periods as a total length of service (not giving the right to early retirement), they do not have a benefit code.
- The employer's appeal to the court with a demand to recognize as illegal the refusal of the Pension Fund body to accept individual information about the insured persons, taking into account the codes of privileged professions.
This option allows solving the problem of not counting periods of "preferential" work not on an individual basis, but for all employees employed in a similar profession, in a similar production, etc.
Example 3An illustration to the third option for solving the problem of non-crediting in the length of service, which gives the right to an early appointment of a pension (when the employer judicial order disputes the actions of the pension authority to refuse to accept information about the “harmfulness” of the length of service of employees), the decision serves Arbitration Court Sverdlovsk region dated 05/14/2008 in case No. A60-7105 / 2008-C9 (the application for the recognition of illegal actions to refuse to accept individual information about insured persons, taking into account the codes of privileged professions, was satisfied by the court, since, without accepting information on privileged professions, the pension authority fund hinders individuals who have worked in a workplace with harmful working conditions, to be entitled to an early pension).
OAO Malyshevskoye Mining Administration applied to the court with a request to declare illegal the actions of the head of the department for assessing the pension rights of insured persons of the Pension Fund Administration, expressed in the refusal to accept individual information about the insured persons of JSC MRU, taking into account the codes of privileged professions according to List No. 1 of Section XXIV “Enrichment of beryllium raw materials; production of beryllium and its compounds” and in the proposal to make appropriate changes to the information, to exclude from them data on privileged professions.
The employer (JSC MRU) in a lawsuit justified the employment of its employees in jobs with harmful working conditions, giving the right to early appointment of a labor pension.
The court recognized the actions of the pension authority as illegal and ordered it to eliminate the committed violations by accepting information on personalized accounting indicating privileged professions under List No. 1 of Section XXIV.
See Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 24, 1990 No. 848 “On the procedure for confirming the length of service for the appointment of pensions”; Regulations on the procedure for confirming seniority for the appointment of pensions, approved. Decree of the USSR State Committee for Labor dated September 12, 1990 No. 369/16-52; Regulations on the procedure for confirming seniority for the appointment of a pension in the RSFSR, approved. Order of the Ministry social security RSFSR dated October 4, 1991 No. 190.
See also Decree of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation of June 24, 1994 No. 50 "On approval of the procedure for establishing work experience in case of loss of documents as a result of emergency situations."
See also the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 30, 2001 No. GKPI 2001-1673, the rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 21, 2005 No. 67-V05-5, of January 14, 2005 No. 9-G04-35 and of March 10, 2006 No. 46-B06-3.
Approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of September 15, 2010.
Resolutions of November 5, 2002 No. 320-O and October 3, 2006 No. 471-O, resolutions of January 29, 2004 No. 2-P and June 3, 2004 No. 11-P.
The procedure for interaction between the Pension Fund bodies and employers in order to correctly and timely reflect information about employees in the accounting system - see the Instructions on the procedure for maintaining individual (personalized) records of information about insured persons (approved by Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia dated December 14, 2009 No. 987n) .
referee Telenina Oh.A.
Speaker Shalagina O.V.
Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Kemerovo Regional Court consisting of:
presiding Shalagina O.V.,
judges Piskunova Yu.A., Vorozhtsova L.K.,
under Secretary K.S.,
examined in open court on the report of the judge Shalagina Oh.The. civil case on appeal K.E. against the decision of the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of the city of Novokuznetsk, Kemerovo Region, dated January 11, 2012, in the case on the claim of K.E. to the State Institution - the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of the city of Novokuznetsk on the restoration of pension rights,
installed:
K.E. filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (state institution) in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk to declare illegal the refusal to grant an early retirement pension for old age, to include periods of work from 01/04/1998 to 03/01/2001 in the position c, from 03/01/2001 to the present, in a position of experience giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension, recognition of the identity of the positions of a senior educator and; the obligation of the defendant to appoint an early labor old-age pension from September 23, 2001.
The requirements are motivated by the fact that on September 23, 2011, she applied to the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk for the appointment of an early retirement old-age pension in accordance with paragraphs. 19 p. 1 art. 27 of the Federal Law “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation”, since by the time of applying she had the required teaching experience of at least 25 years.
By the decision of the PFR Management Commission N 330701 dated 04.10.2011, she was denied an early retirement pension due to the lack of the required special experience, since her teaching experience as of 04.10.2011 is 11 years 5 months 26 days, and the above periods of work were not included in the special length of service, giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension.
Considers the commission's decision illegal.
During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff K.E. waived claims regarding the inclusion in the special length of service period from 04.01.1998 to 01.03.2001 in office, since the defendant these requirements are met in full.
By a court ruling of December 22, 2011, the proceedings in the case in the specified part were terminated (case files 26-28).
The representative of the GU - Office of the Pension Fund in the Russian Federation for the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of the city of Novokuznetsk N. did not recognize the claims.
By the decision of the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Novokuznetsk dated January 11, 2012, in satisfaction of the claims of K.E. denied.
In the appeal K.E. asks the court to cancel the decision, indicating that the court must proceed from the specific circumstances of each case established at the court session (the nature and specifics, the conditions of the work carried out by the plaintiff, the functional duties performed by him in his position and profession, the workload, taking into account the goals and objectives, and also areas of activity of institutions, organizations in which he worked, etc.).
Refers to pp. b p. 8 of the Rules for calculating periods of work, giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension in accordance with Art. 27 and 28 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation", approved. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 11, 2002 N 516, according to which the length of service taken into account in the early appointment of a labor pension includes the time of work in the position of deputy head for educational and other work directly related to the educational process. He believes that she carried out such activities during the disputed period, which is confirmed by the mode of her work, job description and the testimony of her and witnesses, which was also not disputed by the defendant. However, these facts and evidence were assessed by the court and were not taken into account.
Head UPF RF (GU) in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk FULL NAME6 filed objections to the appeal.
At the hearing of the court of appeal, the representative of the UPF RF (GU) in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk, duly notified of the consideration of the case, did not appear. The Judicial Board considers it possible to consider the case in his absence.
Having studied the case file, discussing the arguments of the appeal and objections to the complaint, after hearing K.E., who supported the arguments of the complaint, having considered the case in accordance with Part. 1 Article. 327.1 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation within the arguments set forth in the appeal, the panel of judges sees no reason to cancel the decision of the court.
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 17, 2001 N 173-ФЗ “On labor pensions in the Russian Federation”, men who have reached the age of 60 and women who have reached the age of 55 have the right to an old-age labor pension.
In accordance with paragraphs. 19 p. 1 art. 27 of the Federal Law "On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation", an old-age labor pension is assigned before reaching the age established by Article 7 of this Federal Law, to persons who have been teaching in institutions for children for at least 25 years, regardless of their age.
According to paragraph 2 of Art. 27 of the named Federal Law, lists of relevant works, industries, professions, positions, specialties and institutions (organizations), taking into account which an old-age labor pension is assigned in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, the rules for calculating periods of work (activity) and the appointment of this pension, if necessary approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.
The court found that by the decision of the Commission of the Main Directorate - the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk N 330701 dated 04.10.2011 K.E. was denied the appointment of an early labor old-age pension due to the lack of the required special length of service for the implementation of pedagogical activities (case file 10).
From the minutes of the meeting of the Commission of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk N 463 dated 04.10.2011 (case sheets 6 - 9), it follows that the statement of K.E. on the appointment of an early retirement old-age pension was adopted on September 23, 2011, the special length of service of her work was 11 years 5 months 26 days at the time of application. The special length of service does not include, in particular, the periods of work of the plaintiff from 01/14/1998 to 02/28/2001 in the position from 03/01/2001 to 03/31/2011 in the position, according to the information of the individual (personalized) accounting these periods are presented by the insured on a general basis.
Taking into account the refusal of the plaintiff from part of the claims and the termination of the proceedings in connection with this, the controversial period is the period of work of the plaintiff from March 01, 2001 to September 23, 2011 in office.
The fact that the plaintiff worked in the specified position during the disputed period is confirmed by the information of her work book(case file 15 - 17).
Resolving the stated claims, the court came to the conclusion about the refusal to satisfy them in full.
This conclusion is essentially legitimate and justified.
Thus, the List of positions and institutions, work in which is counted in the length of service, giving the right to early assignment of an old-age labor pension to persons who carried out pedagogical activities in institutions for children, in accordance with subparagraph 19 of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Federal Law "On labor pensions in of the Russian Federation”, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 29, 2002 N 781, the column “position name” provides for the position of deputy director (head, head), whose activities are related to the educational (educational) process; in the column "name of the institution" in clause 1.8 preschool institutions are included.
When resolving the dispute, the court concluded that the position of K.E. does not correspond to the title of the position provided for by List N 781.
The Judicial Board believes that this judgment cannot be recognized as correct, since the position of the plaintiff in its name is the deputy head of the preschool institution for educational and methodological work- corresponds to the title of the position provided for by List N 781; the connection of its activities with the educational (educational) process is not disputed by the defendant and is confirmed by the job description, in official duties and whose functions include, in particular, attending classes in groups, monitoring the implementation of regime processes, studying the work of circles and studios, analyzing the diagnosis of children's development, their knowledge, skills, organizing the work of creative groups, monitoring and ensuring the quality of educational and educational process, etc.; a mode of work that provides for direct educational activities with children during part of the working time; testimonies of the plaintiff and the witnesses interrogated by the court.
At the same time, the above conclusion of the court does not testify to the illegality of the court decision on the merits.
Refusing to satisfy the claims, the court rightfully referred to the provision of subparagraph "c" of paragraph 8 of the Rules for calculating periods of work, giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension to persons who carried out pedagogical activities in institutions for children, in accordance with subparagraph 19 of paragraph 1 of Article 27 Federal Law "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation", approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 29, 2002 N 781, according to which work in the position of director (head, head), deputy director (head, head) of institutions, specified in paragraphs 1.8, 1.12 and 2 of the section "Name of institutions" of the list for the period up to November 1, 1999.
Taking into account the said provision of substantive law, in fact, the court correctly proceeded from the fact that, since the disputed period of work of the plaintiff in (i.e., in the institution specified in clause 1.8 of the List) took place after November 1, 1999, then this period of work cannot be included in the seniority, giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension in connection with pedagogical activity.
This conclusion of the court corresponds to the explanations contained in paragraph 12 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 2005 N 25 “On some issues that arose with the courts when considering cases related to the exercise by citizens of the right to labor pensions”, according to which, by virtue of subparagraph “ c" clause 8 of the Rules of October 29, 2002 N 781 work as a director (head, head), deputy director (head, head) of the institutions specified in clauses 1.8, 1.12 and 2 of the section "Names of institutions" of the List of positions and institutions, work in which N 781 dated October 29, 2002 is counted in the length of service, giving the right to early assignment of an old-age labor pension to persons who carried out pedagogical activities in institutions for children, is counted in the length of service only for the period up to November 1, 1999. Work in these positions in the institutions specified in paragraphs 1.8, 1.12 and 2 of the section "Names of institutions" of the above list of positions and institutions, which took place after November 1, 1999, is not subject to offset in the teaching experience, giving the right to early appointment of a labor pension according to old age.
With such data, the conclusion of the court to refuse to satisfy the claims for inclusion in the special teaching experience of the period of work of the plaintiff from March 01, 2001 to September 23, 2011 in office corresponds to the law and the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff's arguments in the appeal that her activities were related to the educational process do not affect the legality of this court's conclusion and do not have legal value, since regardless of this, the plaintiff's work in the specified position is not subject to inclusion in the special teaching experience.
The court of first instance also denied satisfaction of the claims for recognition of the identity of the positions of senior educator and.
This denial is considered by the Tribunal to be justified.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 11, 2002 N 516, the right to establish the identity of professions, positions and organizations provided for in Art. Art. 27 and 28 of the Federal Law "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation", as well as the Lists of jobs, professions and positions, specialties and institutions, taking into account which an old-age labor pension is early assigned, is provided only to the Ministry of Labor and social development the Russian Federation on the proposal of the federal executive authorities and in agreement with the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.
According to paragraph 9 of the above-mentioned Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 2005 N 25, in case of disagreement of a citizen with the refusal of the pension body to include in the special length of service, taking into account which an old-age labor pension can be assigned before reaching the age established by Article 7 of the Federal Law "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation” (paragraph 1 of Article 27 and subparagraphs 7-13 of paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the said Law), the period of his work, which, according to the plaintiff, is subject to crediting into a special length of service, it must be taken into account that the question of the form (type) institutions (organizations), the identity of the functions performed by the plaintiff, the conditions and nature of the activity to those works (positions, professions) that give the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension, should be decided by the court based on the specific circumstances of each case established in the court session (the nature and specifics, conditions of work carried out by the plaintiff, functional duties performed by him by positions and professions, workload, taking into account the goals and objectives, as well as the activities of the institutions, organizations in which he worked, etc.).
Based on the above, the courts are not entitled to establish the identity of professions, positions and organizations, however, the courts are given the opportunity to establish the identity of the functions performed by the plaintiff, the conditions and nature of the activity to those jobs (positions, professions) that give the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension.
At the same time, the question of the identity of the functions performed, the conditions and nature of the activity to those positions that give the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension, to resolve the issue of offsetting these periods in the special length of service, can be decided by the court only if the employer incorrectly names the position of the plaintiff, which is not included in the regulations.
Since the plaintiff made demands to recognize the identity of the positions (and not functions) of the senior educator and the deputy head of educational and methodological work, the resolution of which is not within the competence of the court, but at the same time the court correctly pointed out that both positions (deputy head of a preschool institution and senior educator) are provided for by List N 781, i.e. the position of the plaintiff (deputy head for educational and methodological work) was named correctly by the employer (this name is provided for by the “Tariff and qualification characteristics for the positions of employees of educational institutions and organizations”, approved by the Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia of November 11, 1992 N 33, “Standards for determining the number staff, engaged in service preschool institutions(nursery, nursery-kindergartens, kindergartens)”, approved by Decree of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation of 04.21.1993 N 88), then the court’s conclusion to refuse to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims in this part corresponds to the law and the circumstances of the case.
For the above reasons, the panel of judges cannot take into account the arguments of the appeal, which do not refute the conclusions made by the court of first instance, are not based on the law and have no legal significance for resolving this dispute.
Thus, when resolving the dispute by the court, the circumstances relevant to the case were correctly identified and established, the norms of substantive and procedural law were correctly applied, the evidence presented was properly assessed in accordance with the requirements of Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the conclusions of the court correspond to the circumstances of the case and the law.
With such data, the panel of judges concludes that the court's decision is lawful and justified, and there are no grounds for its cancellation on the grounds of the appeal.
However, the Judicial Board draws attention to the following.
According to the operative part of the court decision, the plaintiff was denied satisfaction of the requirement to oblige government agency— Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk to include in the preferential length of service the period of work from 11/01/1999 to 09/23/2011 as deputy head for educational and methodological work.
Considering that, by a court ruling of December 22, 2011, the proceedings on the case were terminated in terms of the requirements for inclusion in the special length of service of the period of work from 01/04/1998 to 03/01/2001 in office, in connection with which only the period of work of the plaintiff is a controversial period from March 01, 2001 to September 23, 2011 in office, the judicial board considers it necessary to exclude from the operative part of the court decision the judgment on the refusal to satisfy the claims on imposing on the defendant the obligation to include in the preferential length of service the period of work from 01.11.1999 to 01.03 .2001 in office.
Guided by Art. 328 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Judicial Board
determined:
The decision of the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Novokuznetsk, Kemerovo Region dated January 11, 2012, is left unchanged, the appeal is not satisfied.
From the operative part of the court's decision to exclude the judgment on the refusal to satisfy the claims of K.E. on the obligation of the GU - Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Ordzhonikidzevsky district of Novokuznetsk to include in the preferential length of service the period of work from 11/01/1999 to 03/01/2001 in the position.
presiding
O.V.SHALAGINA
Judges
Yu.A. PISKUNOV
L.K.VOROZHTSOVA
An analysis of legal documents shows that your position was named incorrectly from the very beginning. The fact is that an early retirement old-age pension is currently assigned in accordance with the norms of the Federal Law “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation”. The law contains only general terms and Conditions, which determine the right to a pension, including the conditions for seniority, but the new Lists of relevant jobs, industries, professions, positions and specialties and institutions have not yet been approved and, on the basis of two Decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation, Lists No. 1 and No. 2 continue to operate , approved Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on January 26, 1991 No. 10 and Lists No. 1 and No. 2, approved. Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 22, 1956.
In both the 1956 List and the 1991 List, your profession is called "tinned coppersmith". In the Unified Tariff and Qualification Handbook, second edition, part 2, approved. By Decree of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation of November 15, 1999 No. 45, there is a profession "copper" - paragraph 49 "Copper".
The current regulatory legal acts provide for an administrative procedure for establishing the identity of professions. At the same time, we can talk about a fixed identity of professions, since it is “legalized” in advance in special regulatory legal acts: Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia of April 1, 2003 No. 15 and Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 24, 2003 No. 239.
Thus, Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated April 1, 2003 No. 15 provides that the professions of workers provided for by Lists No. 1 and No. 2 of 1991, and the same professions that previously had other names that are provided for by Lists No. 1 and No. 2 of 1956, and which, when revising the relevant editions of the Unified Tariff and Qualification Reference Book of Works and Professions of Workers, were unified in the professions included in Lists No. 1 and 2 of 1991, are identical.
Periods of work in the professions specified in the Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated April 1, 2003 No. 15 can be counted in the length of service giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension in accordance with subparagraphs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of paragraph 1 Art. 27 of the Federal Law “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation”, when the enterprise administration submits to the Pension Fund extracts from the relevant issues of the ETKS or resolutions of the USSR State Committee for Labor confirming the unification of professions and other similar documents.
It seems that your situation is not resolved with the help of these regulatory legal acts.
Further, Government Decree of July 11, 2002 No. 516 “On Approval of the Rules for Calculating Periods of Work Entitled to Early Appointment of an Old-age Labor Pension in accordance with Articles 27 and 28 of the Federal Law “On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation” provides for a different mechanism for establishing identity - for each case separately. The identity of professions, positions and organizations (structural divisions) provided for in Articles 27 and 28 of the Federal Law "On Labor Pensions in the Russian Federation", as well as lists of jobs, professions, positions, specialties and institutions, taking into account which an old-age labor pension is assigned ahead of schedule, the same professions, positions and organizations (structural divisions) that previously had other names.
The identity of professions is determined in each specific case on the basis of documents evidencing the nature of the work performed, for the period when a different name of the profession was established for the employee. Witness testimony is not a basis for confirming the nature of the work and working conditions of the employee.
Such documents include: a certificate stating that the given name of the profession is local, therefore it was not contained in the ETKS during the period for which the identity is established; documents certifying the coincidence of the characteristics of work for the local name of the profession and the profession provided for by Lists No. 1 and No. 2; documents confirming permanent, full-time (i.e. at least 80% of working time) employment in jobs that give the right to pension benefits (for example, a description of the technological regulations, staffing tables, job descriptions, books on accounting for safety briefings, payrolls, orders and instructions on assigning an employee to certain equipment, technical passports for equipment, waybills, job logs, etc.).
All these documents (each individually or in combination) can confirm work in a particular position. They are located in various divisions of the enterprise (organization):
In the personnel department (employment book, personal accounts, orders for hiring, dismissal, vacation orders);
In the financial department and accounting department (settlement and payroll on wages, personal accounts, limit cards for the cost of basic and auxiliary materials, waybills, etc.);
In the departments of the chief engineer, chief mechanic, chief electrician (orders or instructions on assigning to certain equipment, equipment repair schedules, equipment technical passports);
In the department of organization of labor and wages (staffing, staffing, tariff and qualification reference books, work assignments, job descriptions, data on shortened working hours and on additional holidays associated with harmful working conditions);
In the department of the technologist (technological regulations, technological instructions);
In the department of labor protection and safety (logs for recording safety briefings, documents on obtaining overalls, attestation of workplaces for working conditions).
In laboratories, the control room, the heads of workshops, sections have a magazine laboratory research on working conditions, waybills, orders, registers of work with radioactive substances, etc. Documents must reflect the period that can be included in the length of service, giving the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension.
The procedure for establishing identity in this case is as follows: the employer organization has the right to apply to the relevant sectoral ministry, and it, in turn, must apply to the Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Russian Federation, which, after evaluating the documents, applies to the Pension Fund to agree on the issue.
As you can see, the administrative procedure applies to cases of changing the names of professions in connection with the introduction of the new Unified Tariff and Qualification Guide. In your situation, this order is not possible to use. Unfortunately, we do not have judicial practice on the issue of establishing the identity of professions, but we believe that it is possible to go to court with a claim.
We are publishing the Decree of the Presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court dated November 20, 2015 No. 44Г-81/2015 “On the cancellation of judicial acts in the case on the claim for recognition of the right to early appointment of an old-age pension, sending the case to the court of first instance”.
M. filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Toguchinsky District Novosibirsk region on the recognition of the right to an early labor old-age pension, since by the decision of the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Toguchinsky district of the Novosibirsk region, he was denied early assignment of an old-age labor pension in connection with the implementation of pedagogical activities on the basis of the lack of the required special experience with reference to the absence of the position of senior master in the lists.
The plaintiff does not agree with this decision, he believes that, while holding the position of senior foreman of industrial training, he performed the same duties as the foreman of industrial training. M. indicates that his position is provided staffing educational institution, there is an entry in his work book, in accordance with the industry tariff agreement for state educational institutions of the Novosibirsk region, he belongs to the positions of pedagogical workers along with the position of master of industrial training, and he also actually carried the pedagogical load in the subjects "Elements of technical mechanics" and " Drawing” during the specified period of time on an ongoing basis for a full working day, in support of which they were provided with comprehensive written evidence. The billing plan reflected the fact that the plaintiff bore the pedagogical load in full. During my work I constantly passed qualification certification, according to the results of which the first qualification category of a teacher was assigned, the employer paid insurance premiums to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation. For the implementation of educational activities, he was repeatedly encouraged by diplomas and letters of thanks.
Since the position of the master of industrial training corresponds to the list of positions and institutions, work in which is included in the length of service, giving the right to early assignment of a labor pension, the plaintiff considers his right to the appointment of an early labor pension violated, since he worked and performed the duties of a master of industrial training, only with the addition of control functions.
By the decision of the Toguchinskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region dated April 06, 2015, the claims of M. were satisfied: the decision of the pension authority was canceled, the obligation was imposed on the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Toguchinskiy District of the Novosibirsk Region to include in the length of service of M. the corresponding period of work as a senior master of industrial training of a PU , appoint and make M. the payment of an early labor old-age pension from the moment the right to a preferential pension becomes available.
By the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Novosibirsk Regional Court of July 30, 2015, the decision of the Toguchinskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region of April 6, 2015 was upheld.
In the appeal, the representative of the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Toguchinsky district of the Novosibirsk region asks to cancel the above court decisions in connection with a significant violation of the law in the consideration of the case.
Having checked the case materials, having discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal, the presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court finds the complaint subject to satisfaction, referring to the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of September 29, 2015 No. with any job educational institutions, but only with such, in the performance of which the body of the worker is exposed to the adverse effects of various kinds of factors due to the specifics and nature professional activity; while taking into account differences in the nature of work, functional duties people working in different jobs.
Recognition of the claimant's right to an early appointment of an old-age labor pension should be resolved by the court in relation to a combination of two conditions: resolving the issue of the identity of the work performed by the plaintiff with those works that give the right to early assignment of an old-age labor pension, and the fulfillment by the plaintiff (in total for the main and other places of work) norms of working time (pedagogical or teaching load) established for the wage rate (official salary).
According to the joint Letter of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation No. 20-58-19620-5 and the Trade Union of Public Education and Science Workers of the Russian Federation No. 7 dated January 16, 2001, the teaching staff holding the positions of masters of industrial training is set to have a norm of study hours in the amount of 36 hours of teaching work per week.
In accordance with Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 03, 2003 No. 191 “On the duration of working hours (norm of hours of pedagogical work for the wage rate) of pedagogical workers”, the norm of hours of teaching load is set for masters of industrial training in the amount of 36 hours of pedagogical work per week.
However, the courts of the first and appellate instances did not clarify the circumstances of the plaintiff's fulfillment of the norm of the teaching load during the disputed period. So, in the court decisions of the court of first instance and the judicial board, in violation of the requirements of Part 4 of Art. 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, no conclusions were drawn about the fulfillment or non-fulfillment by M. of the norm of the teaching load in the above period.
Based on the foregoing and, guided by Articles 387, 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the presidium decided:
- The decision of the Toguchinskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region of April 6, 2015 and the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Novosibirsk Regional Court of July 30, 2015 in a civil case on the claim of M. against the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Toguchinskiy District of the Novosibirsk Region on recognition of the right to early cancel the appointment of an old-age labor pension.
- Send a civil case on the claim of M. to the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Toguchinsky District of the Novosibirsk Region on recognition of the right to early appointment of an old-age labor pension for a new consideration in the Toguchinsky District Court of the Novosibirsk Region.
- Satisfy the cassation appeal of the representative of the Office of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Toguchinsky District of the Novosibirsk Region.
Document as of August 2014
The State Committee for Labor of the USSR studied the practice of sectoral ministries, departments and social security bodies in establishing the identity of local names of professions with the professions provided for by tariff-qualification reference books when resolving issues of preferential pension coverage for workers.
It has been established that the corresponding conclusions of the sectoral ministries and departments, submitted by them to the ministries of social security of the Union republics, are mainly drawn up in accordance with the rules introduced by the USSR State Labor Committee.
Recently, however, the ministries of social security have received unfounded conclusions about the identity of professions, aimed at expanding the circle of persons entitled to preferential pension provision.
Branch ministries in the past can establish the identity of only local (arbitrary) names of workers' professions that are not provided for by tariff and qualification directories with the professions listed in Lists No. 1 and No. 2 of industries, workshops, professions and positions, work in which gives the right to state pension on preferential terms and in preferential amounts, approved by the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of August 22, 1956 N 1173, regardless of the time of their publication. However, a number of ministries confirm the identity of professions in violation of this rule.
The Ministry of Agriculture confirmed the identity of the "riveter" and "stamper" at the Rostselmash plant, "operator (locksmith)" and "shaper" at the Krasnoyarsk combine plant, who do not enjoy the right to a preferential pension.
These professions were at one time provided for in the tariff-qualification reference books and therefore the right to establish identity does not apply to them.
Proposals similar in nature were submitted to the social security bodies by the Ministry of Chermet of the USSR and the Ministry of Chermet of the Ukrainian SSR, the Minmash, the Ministry of Electronic Industry, the Mintopprom of the RSFSR, the Minstankoprom, the Minlegpischemash, the Minradioprom, the USSR Ministry of Food Industry and the Ministry of Food Industry of the Ukrainian SSR, the Minavtoprom, the Minavtotrans of the Ukrainian SSR, and others. "bakelitchik" (Azovstal of the Minchermet of the Ukrainian SSR), "gasman" and "thermist" (Zhukovsky bicycle plant of the Minavtoprom), "auxiliary pickler" and "handy pickler" (Rostov plant "Rubin"), "crissing man" and "pressing man" (factory " Exciton" and Kharkiv plant "Radiodetal"), "pipe bending machine operator" and "solderer" (Donetsk plant "Avtoremont"), "adjuster of the thermal department" and "repair fitter" (Dnepropetrovsk machine-building plant), "miscella distiller" and "operator "(Poltava oil and fat plant)," polisher "and" polisher "(Moscow plant" Salyut "), etc.; a number of ministries exceed the granted rights and make proposals to establish the identity of the names of positions of engineering and technical workers.
In accordance with the procedure established by the State Labor Committee of the USSR, the identity of professions is determined on the basis of documents confirming the nature of the work performed and its compliance with the characteristics provided for this profession in the tariff-qualification directory that was in force at that time. However, decisions on the identity of professions are sent to the ministries of social security without documentary justification or taken on the basis of testimony. Such decisions were sent by the Ministry of Bumprom to the Solikamsk Pulp and Paper Mill; at the Kyiv plant "Communist"; Minstankoprom on the Melitopol machine-tool plant; Ministry of Construction Materials of the Ukrainian SSR for the Makeevka glass factory; Minchermet of the Ukrainian SSR for the Novo-Krivoy Rog Mining and Processing Plant; the Ministry of Electrotechnical Industry for the Tomsk Electrotechnical Plant "Sibelektromotor"; plant "Khimlaborpribor" Klinsky production association"Thermopribor"; machine-building plant "Salyut", etc.
The ministries of social security are authorized to consider conclusions on the identity of professions adopted by sectoral ministries and departments. However, in a number of cases, decisions of the heads of structural subdivisions of ministries and departments are sent to them.
Facts of direct appeals to the ministries of social security of the union republics on similar issues by heads of enterprises and organizations have become more frequent.
Individual sectoral ministries and departments, enterprises and organizations send their proposals for establishing identity to the ministries of social security of the autonomous republics, regional, regional, city and district departments of social security.
A number of ministries and departments and individual enterprises applied directly to the State Labor Committee of the USSR to establish the identity of professions with a local name.
These deviations from established rules lead to excessive interdepartmental correspondence, necessitate cross-checks by social security agencies of documents submitted by ministries and departments, lengthy consideration of the questions raised by them, which causes justified complaints from workers.
In connection with the foregoing, the State Committee for Labor of the USSR asks, when preparing conclusions on the identity of the names of professions, in addition to the letter of the State Committee for Labor dated March 4, 1971 N 25-AB, to be guided by the following:
1. Occupations with local names may include only those professions that were not provided for in the tariff and qualification reference books that were in force at the time when the wrong name of the profession was established in the work book of the worker.
2. According to the documents available at the enterprise, the actual work performed by profession with a local name is determined. As reference documents confirming the characteristics of the work, the following can be accepted: orders (instructions) on assigning workers to certain areas of work and equipment; personal accounts; payroll statements for wages; timesheets; logs (cards) of working hours; job logs; foremen's workbooks; work orders; normalized tasks; safety briefing books (personal safety briefing books) and others.
3. The nature of the work actually performed, established by the documents, is compared with the characteristics of the work by profession in the tariff-qualification reference books that were in force at that time. After that, the name of the profession is determined, which should be established by the worker for the work he performs, i.e. the identity of the profession, which has a local name, with the profession provided for in the tariff-qualification directory is established.
4. If the profession (according to the tariff-qualification guide) is provided for in Lists N 1 or N 2, then copies of documents confirming the characteristics of the work, along with an extract from the worker's work book and a certificate stating that the profession assigned to the worker with a local name is not in the TCS , certified by the management of the enterprise or organization, are sent to the union, union-republican, republican ministry or department in the order of subordination.
5. Proposals on preferential pension coverage for workers who have been assigned local names of professions, after establishing their identity with the professions provided for by the TCS, are submitted on behalf of the sectoral ministries and departments to the ministries of social security of the union republics with all the materials on the basis of which the corresponding conclusion was made .
Deputy Chairman of the Committee
M.M. KRAVCHENKO
