Employment in Financial Services

From a labour perspective, there are no circumstances in which notifications relating to the employee or their conduct must be made to local or international regulators.

Considering that the National Financial System is extremely regulated, there may be cases in which a mistake by an employee results in a duty to report to the authorities (information security breach, prevention of money laundering, and prevention of terrorist financing, among others, which could not be exhaustively included in this questionnaire).

There is no general code defined by law or regulation.

Each company can adopt its standard of behaviour, as a rule.

Some activities require specific protocols for the prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism:

• the capture, intermediation, and investment of financial resources from third parties in national or foreign currency;

• the purchase and sale of foreign currency or gold as a financial asset or exchange instrument; and

• the custody, issuance, distribution, settlement, negotiation, intermediation, or securities administration.

Within the scope of the system for preventing and combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism, it is up to institutions and their employees to adequately comply with Central Bank regulations; promote the effectiveness of the apparatus to combat and prevent money laundering; carry out risk management with the implementation of effective policies, procedures, and controls; and help the Brazilian state to locate which financial operations are suspicious so that they can be investigated.

As a general principle, supervised companies are required to ensure that persons holding, in particular, executive, overall management, oversight or control functions fulfil the requirements of the “fit and proper” test. Consequently, such persons must be of good repute and can guarantee compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

If a person cannot guarantee that the regulatory requirements are fulfilled at all times (eg, because of a material breach of its duties) the employing entity and its audit companies may be required to immediately report to FINMA, respectively, any incident that is of significance.

No specific law determines what employers should implement to prevent wrongdoing. However, implementing reporting channels and policies to prevent and combat harassment is based on general corporate governance rules.

There are no specific whistleblowing laws in Switzerland, but employees have a right to report grievances and misconduct to their employer, provided that they do not commit a breach of a fiduciary duty or cause damage (eg, malicious false reports).

However, employees must also report material facts or incidents of misconduct and the misconduct of other employees discovered in the course of their work to their employer under the employee's duty of loyalty.

On the other hand, an employee’s duty of loyalty and, in particular, an employee’s statutory duty of confidentiality flowing from it may also give rise to a duty to not report.

Based on the current legal situation, there may be a conflict between an employee’s need to report grievances (internally or externally) and a possible duty to not report with regard to an external report. An attempt to resolve this conflict through legislation has failed, and a new attempt to introduce whistleblowing legislation in Switzerland is not expected anytime soon.

Concerning whistleblowing by employees to a public authority or even to the public, employees are regularly prevented from doing so by confidentiality obligations under criminal law. Any justification for such a disclosure will usually only be examined in the context of a criminal investigation against the employee.

However, larger companies have taken measures and set up certain processes to uncover and prevent wrongdoing without having to do so under mandatory laws. For instance, companies have implemented internal or external reporting offices.

When it comes to harassment, an employer is explicitly required to protect employees from sexual harassment (prevention) and to protect any victims from further disadvantages (active protection). According to the Gender Equality Act, victims of sexual harassment may be awarded compensation of up to six months' wages by the courts, in addition to damages and restitution, unless the employer can prove that they have "taken all measures that are necessary and appropriate according to experience to prevent sexual harassment and that they can reasonably be expected to take”. Employers are therefore advised to actively address the issue of sexual harassment (as well as general discrimination and bullying) in the workplace and include it in their regulations or directives.

Yes, restrictive covenants are possible for financial service employees. However, restrictions on work in other companies in the sector (non-competition) must be paid for less than 24 months. These criteria are not provided for by law, but were constructed by Brazilian courts when adjudicating on this issue.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector in Switzerland. Rather, general post-contractual non-compete regulations come into play: the parties of an employment contract may agree on a non-compete clause, which must be included in the employment contract in writing to be valid. For the non-compete clause to be relevant, it must be sufficiently limited in terms of time, place and subject matter. Normally, the duration of a post-termination non-compete clause is no more than one year; however, the statutorily permissible duration is three years.

As a prerequisite for a contractual non-compete clause to be binding, access to sensitive data is required. The employee must either have access to customer data or manufacturing or business secrets. However, access alone is not enough. There must also be the possibility of harming the employer using this knowledge.

If a relationship between the customer and the employee or employer is personal (which is, for example, the case for lawyers or doctors), a post-termination non-compete clause is not applicable according to the Federal Supreme Court.

If there is an excessive non-compete clause, this can be restricted by a judge. In practice, most of the time, no restriction of the post-termination non-compete clause is imposed if the employer offers consideration in return for the agreement. The prohibition of competition may become invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the clause can become irrelevant if the employer has no more interest in maintaining the non-compete clause. Secondly, the clause is not effective if the employer has terminated the employment relationship. However, this does not apply if the employee has given the employer a reason to terminate the employment relationship.

Swiss employment law does not provide for any compensation for a post-termination non-compete clause.