Employee protection in practice: has Law No. 2980 come into effect for railway workers?

Following the first interview with Tetiana Verbovetska, chair of the primary trade union organisation for railway workers at the Zaporizhzhia Railway Transport Directorate (3 October 2025), on how Law No. 2980 regarding the payment of one-off financial assistance for harm to life and health, caused as a result of military aggression against employees of critical infrastructure facilities, the story of Hennadiy Havrylenko, a train dispatcher at one of the structural divisions of JSC ‘Ukrzaliznytsia’, has taken a new turn. More precisely – a new refusal.

Despite the legislative amendments introduced by Law No. 4793-IX of 13 March 2026, the Pension Fund of Ukraine has once again refused to pay the one-off benefit to the injured railway worker.

It should be recalled that in 2023, Hennadiy Havrylenko sustained serious injuries during a rocket attack on Yantseve station in the Zaporizhzhia region. The accident occurred whilst he was carrying out his work duties. The employee has a special investigation report, an initial disability classification of Group II, and all the documents confirming his entitlement to the payment. However, even following changes to the legislation, the system continues to seek not a way to comply with the law, but new grounds for refusal.

– Ms Tetyana, what has happened since our last interview?

– We lodged an appeal, but the court upheld the original ruling, as the previous regulations were in force at the time, and the station where the employee was injured did not, strictly speaking, qualify as a critical infrastructure facility.

In 2026, partly thanks to appeals from our trade union and the work of the trade union chair with Members of Parliament (I also took part in one such meeting and personally explained to the MPs the problems our workers face in such cases), the Verkhovna Rada amended Law No. 2980, closing the loophole and enabling employees to reapply for payment.

Following the entry into force of Law No. 4793-IX and the expiry of the deadline set for the Cabinet of Ministers to bring its regulations into line, our employee reapplied to the Pension Fund. However, instead of reviewing the case based on the documents relating to the initial determination of disability due to injury, he was required to provide the latest decision of the expert commission.

After all, during the review, he had already been assigned Group III disability due to comorbidities arising after the injury. It was precisely this that the Pension Fund used as a new ground for refusal, effectively disregarding both the special investigation report and the documents concerning the initial determination of disability resulting from the injury.

The second reason was that, at the time of the appeal, the Cabinet of Ministers had not yet brought its resolution into line with the law, so the Pension Fund was operating under outdated subordinate legislation.

– Did you get the impression that officials were looking for any excuse not to pay compensation?

– Judge for yourselves. Even after the Cabinet of Ministers had complied with the requirements of the law, the employee was told that they would not accept the documents a second time, as a decision to refuse his claim had already been made.

This approach runs counter to the purpose of the legislative changes, as the law was enacted precisely to restore the rights of employees who had previously been unjustifiably denied them. What needs to be assessed are the circumstances of the injury and the initial determination of disability, not the person’s current state of health. Instead, he was advised to take the matter to court again.

– But you didn’t stop there, did you?

– No. We lodged a complaint with the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Zaporizhzhia region. However, they too refused to review the case, citing the fact that the employee has now been assigned a different disability category.

We will continue to defend his rights. But not everyone is prepared to fight for years after the first refusal, even when it is clearly unfounded.

– So the amendments to the law have not actually changed the situation?

– Unfortunately, this case is typical. The law has changed, but the way it is applied in practice has not always followed suit. Critical infrastructure workers, who risk their lives and health, are forced, after being injured, to also prove their right to state-guaranteed assistance.

It is particularly regrettable that the funds for these payments are provided for in the state budget. However, instead of complying with the law, the Pension Fund continues to seek technical grounds for refusal, rather than ensuring that affected workers can exercise their legal rights.

– In your opinion, what amendments to Law No. 2980 could realistically rectify the situation regarding refusals to railway workers? Perhaps some other mechanisms need to be put in place?

– We simply need to start complying with the law, rather than looking for excuses to ignore it. As far as I am aware, even those workers who have won court cases against the Pension Fund of Ukraine have not yet received their money, even though the funds have been allocated in the budget.