Employment in Financial Services

Employment law in Switzerland is based mainly on the following sources, set out in order of priority:

• the Federal Constitution;
• Cantonal Constitutions;
• public law, particularly the Federal Act on Work in Industry, Crafts and Commerce (the Labour Act) and five ordinances issued under this Act regulating work, and health and safety conditions;
• civil law, particularly the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO);
• collective bargaining agreements, if applicable;
• individual employment agreements; and
• usage, custom, doctrine, and case law.

Depending on the regulatory status of the employer and the specific activities of financial services employees, respectively, Swiss financial market laws may also apply. They are, in particular, the Federal banking, financial institutions and insurance supervision regulations.

In the UK, there are two main regulators responsible for the supervision of financial institutions. These are:

• The Prudential Regulation Authority (the PRA) – The PRA supervises over 1,500 financial institutions, including banks, building societies, credit unions, insurance companies and major investment firms. It creates policies for these institutions to follow and watches over aspects of their business.
• The Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) – The FCA regulates the conduct of approximately 50,000 firms, prudentially supervises 48,000 firms, and sets specific standards for around 18,000 firms.

Some financial institutions are regulated by both the PRA and FCA (dual-regulated). Those financial institutions must comply with rules set down by the PRA in its rulebook (the PRA Rulebook) and by the FCA in its handbook (the FCA Handbook). Other firms are regulated solely by the FCA (solo-regulated) and must comply with the FCA handbook alone. Different rules can apply depending on the nature and size of the firm. The PRA and FCA work closely on certain issues and firms, but the FCA focuses specifically on ensuring fair outcomes for consumers.

The Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) sets out how the UK regulators oversee people in businesses supervised and regulated by them, and how those people must act. As the FCA has summarised, “The SM&CR aims to reduce harm to consumers and strengthen market integrity by making individuals more accountable for their conduct and competence” (https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/senior-managers-certification-regime).

SM&CR consists of three elements:

• The Senior Managers Regime (SMR) – This applies to the most senior people in a firm (senior managers) who perform one or more senior management functions (SMFs). These functions are specified in the PRA Rulebook and the FCA Handbook. Senior managers must be pre-approved by the PRA or FCA before starting their roles. Each senior manager must also have a “Statement of Responsibilities” (that sets out what they are responsible and accountable for), which may include (depending on the firm) certain responsibilities prescribed by the regulator known as “Prescribed Responsibilities”. Every year, senior managers must be certified as fit and proper to carry out their role by their firm.
• The Certification Regime (CR) – This applies to employees who, because of their role, could pose a risk of significant harm to the firm or its customers, such as employees who offer investment advice (certified staff). For solo-regulated firms, these roles are generally called certification functions. Firms must certify that these employees are fit and proper for their roles both at the outset of their employment and continuously.
• The Conduct Rules – The Conduct Rules set minimum standards of individual behaviour in financial services in the UK. They apply to almost all employees of a firm. They also include particular rules applicable only to senior managers.

Certain parts of SM&CR apply to particular firms only. This is outside the scope of this note, which sets out the general position under SM&CR.

In the United States, there are different regulatory environments, depending on the nature of the employer.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulates the offer and sale of securities, the various obligations of public companies, and the registration and conduct of broker-dealers. The SEC also regulates investment advisers.
• Every state has its own securities laws, known as Blue Sky Laws. These laws vary from state to state, but most, including New York and California, impose registration requirements on broker-dealers. State laws also require employees of brokers and dealers engaged in securities transactions to register as agents or salespersons.
  • The California Corporate Securities Law of 1968 covers securities offerings in the state of California.
  • The New York General Business Law and the New York Compilations of Codes, Rules and Regulations cover securities offerings in the state of New York.
• The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is a private self-regulatory organisation that oversees exchange markets and brokerage firms and regulates the conduct of broker-dealer member firms.
• The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulates commodities or future brokers and exchanges under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
• Banks are regulated by both federal and state regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
• Commodities or future brokers or exchanges are covered by the CEA and are regulated by the CFTC.
• The Protocol for Broker Recruiting is an agreement signed by more than 2,000 broker-dealers. This Protocol specifically places limits on the restrictions a signatory firm can place on representatives who move to another signatory firm.

Most states have their own financial regulatory regimes. For example:

• The New York Department of Financial Services has regulatory authority over banks and certain other financial services entities within the state of New York.
• The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation has regulatory authority over financial services entities within the state of California.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are generally lawful in Switzerland. However, NDAs are not regulated by statutory law and therefore do not have to follow any particular statutory form or rule. Nevertheless, most NDAs often contain a similar basic structure.

The core clauses of an NDA concern:

• manufacturing and business secrets or the scope of further confidentiality;
• the purpose of use;
• the return and destruction of devices containing confidential information; and
• post-contractual confidentiality obligations.

As a general rule, it is recommended to use the written form.

To ensure possible enforcement of an NDA in the employment context, the requirements of a post-contractual non-compete obligation (see below) must be met.

NDAs (also known as confidentiality agreements) are potentially lawful and enforceable in the UK. It is common to include NDAs in employment contracts (to protect the confidential information of the employer during and after employment) and in settlement agreements (to reiterate existing confidentiality obligations and to keep the circumstances of the settlement confidential).

NDAs do not need to follow a particular form, but they must be reasonable in scope. Following #MeToo, there has been considerable government, parliamentary, and regulatory scrutiny of the use of NDAs and their reasonableness in different circumstances.

The following limitations on NDAs should be noted:

• By law, any NDA purporting to prevent an individual from making a “protected disclosure” as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ie, blowing the whistle about a matter) is void.

• The regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), has issued a detailed warning notice and guidance to practitioners setting out – in its view – inappropriate or improper uses of NDAs. Failure to comply with the SRA’s warning notice may lead to disciplinary action. The SRA lists the following as examples of improper use of NDAs:

• • using an NDA as a means of preventing, or seeking to impede or deter, a person from:
    • cooperating with a criminal investigation or prosecution;
    • reporting an offence to a law enforcement agency;
    • reporting misconduct, or a serious breach of the SRA’s regulatory requirements, to the SRA, or making an equivalent report to any other body responsible for supervising or regulating the matters in question; and
    • making a protected disclosure;
    • using an NDA to influence the substance of such a report, disclosure or cooperation;
    • using an NDA to prevent any disclosure required by law;
    • using an NDA to prevent proper disclosure about the agreement or circumstances surrounding the agreement to professional advisers, such as legal or tax advisors, or medical professionals and counsellors, who are bound by a duty of confidentiality;
    • including or proposing clauses known to be unenforceable; and
    • using warranties, indemnities and clawback clauses in a way that is designed to, or has the effect of, improperly preventing or inhibiting permitted reporting or disclosures being made (for example, asking a person to warrant that they are not aware of any reason why they would make a permitted disclosure, in circumstances where a breach of warranty would activate a clawback clause).
       
• The Law Society of England and Wales, a professional association representing solicitors in England and Wales, has issued similar guidance (including a practice note) on the use of NDAs in the context of the termination of employment relationships.
• Other non-regulatory guidance on the use of NDAs has also been issued, including by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Care should be taken accordingly to ensure that the wording of any NDA complies with prevailing guidance, especially from the SRA.

Non-disclosure agreements are currently permissible under United States law with some exceptions, typically pertaining to whistleblower, harassment, and discrimination matters. On 7 December 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act, which prohibits the enforcement of non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions that were agreed to before an incident of workplace sexual assault or sexual harassment occurred. In other words, it does not prohibit these provisions in settlement or severance agreements.

Both Dodd-Frank and SOX prohibit employers from impeding an individual’s whistleblowing process. Confidentiality provisions should expressly authorise employee communications directly with, or responding to any inquiry from, or providing testimony before the SEC, FINRA, any other self-regulatory organisation or any other state or federal regulatory authority.

The United States Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018 discourages NDAs in the settlement of sexual harassment claims. Under this law, employers settling claims alleging sexual harassment or abuse that include a confidentiality or non-disclosure provision in the settlement agreement cannot take a tax deduction for that settlement payment or related attorneys' fees.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees (except for supervisors) cannot be prohibited from discussing their compensation or working conditions

California

• California Law prohibits NDAs that would prevent employees from discussing or disclosing their compensation or discussing the wages of others. However, California permits the use of a non-disclosure provision that may preclude the disclosure of any amount paid in any separation or settlement agreement.
• California imposes restrictions on the use of non-disclosure provisions that are designed to restrict an employee's ability to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including information pertaining to harassment or discrimination or any other conduct the employee has reason to believe is unlawful in employment agreements, settlement agreements, and separation agreements.
• California employers cannot:
  • require employees, in exchange for a raise or a bonus, or as a condition of employment or for continued employment, to sign any non-disparagement or non-disclosure provision that denies the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace;
  • include in any separation agreement a provision that prohibits the disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace; or
  • include a provision within a settlement agreement that prevents or restricts the disclosure of factual information related to claims for sexual assault, sexual harassment, workplace harassment or discrimination, retaliation, or failure to prevent workplace harassment or discrimination that are filed in a civil or administrative action, unless the settlement agreement is negotiated, which means that the agreement is voluntary, deliberate, informed, provides consideration of value to the employee, and the employee is giving notice and an opportunity to retain an attorney or is represented by an attorney.

New York

• New York law prohibits NDAs that:
  • prevent an employee from discussing or disclosing their wages or the wages of another employee.
  • prevent an employee from disclosing factual information related to a future discrimination claim, unless the agreement notifies employees that it does not prevent them from speaking to the EEOC, the New York Department of Human Rights, and any local human rights commission or attorney retained by the individual.

New York law also prohibits employers from mandating confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions when settling sexual harassment claims (though allows such provisions where it is the employee’s preference to include them).