The prosecutor’s office advises to have recourse to Labour Inspectorate competent to find out that employment relationship is indeed missing and make the relevant entry into employment register.
Labour Inspectorate deputy director-general Meeli Miidla-Vanatalu admitted the situation was very complex indeed and the man could only get his rights in court. If the entry into employment register would be linked to actual employment contract relationship, the issue could be settled at labour dispute committee. «In the case at hand, however, all there are is registry entries related to the individual, which do not correspond to reality,» she said.
Mr Mihhailov could go to court with several claims. He could demand that the court establish that he has never been on Simetra Tööjõud payroll and the entries into employment register are not true. He could apply for the court to alter entries related to him in employment register. He could demand that companies who caused him damage by false entries compensate the loss of pension. Also, he could require that the company cover his legal assistance related to the court procedure.
«Regrettably, filing a statement of claim is at state fee, and initially there would be the legal assistance costs as related to composing the statement of claim,» observed Ms Vanatalu.
Now, Leonid Mihhailov has three options. Either to sue the mysterious employer, or somehow survive the next 1.5 years until he turns 62 and can draw old age pension.
The third option is hoping that prosecutor’s office will repent and find out for what purpose the company is using other people’s names.