Employment in Financial Services

Financial services employees are primarily subject to general employment law, such as the Employment Contracts Act of 3 July 1978.

Moreover, sectoral collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) also apply. The main concerned joint committees (JCs) are JC No. 310 for banks (including savings banks and stockbroker companies) and JC No. 341 for banking and investment services intermediaries

JC No. 309 for stockbroker companies is abolished since 1 July 2023 and the employees who were covered by it are now covered by joint committee No. 310. A specific CBA was adopted to regulate employees’ rights following this change (Collective bargaining agreement of 3 July 2023 concluded within the Joint Commission for Banks concerning the transfer of stockbroker companies from JC No. 309 to JC No. 310).

Due to the peculiarities of the financial sector, they are also governed by specific regulations, such as Regulation (EU) No. 468/2014 of the European Central Bank; Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms; Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments; the Status and Supervision of Credit Institutions Act of 25 April 2014, the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act of 18 September 2017; and the Supervision of the Financial Sector and on Financial Services Act of 2 August 2002.

Finally, the regulations adopted by supervisory authorities, such as the National Bank of Belgium (NBB), the European Central Bank and the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA), apply to the sector. The Belgian Financial Sector Federation (Febelfin) also issues guidelines.

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 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.

There are no specific rules for the financial services sector, except that they cannot have an effect that does not respect the caps for remuneration (see question 7).

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.

The enforceability of restrictive covenants varies greatly depending on applicable state law. Many states impose specific requirements or limitations on enforceable covenants.

FINRA-regulated firms must comply with additional regulations:

• FINRA rules prohibit interference with a customer’s choice to follow a former representative during a change in employment where there is no existing dispute with the customer about the account. The FINRA-registered agent must help transfer a customer’s account in the event of such a customer request. Note that this only explicitly affects requests by customers and not solicitation by a representative. A non-solicit provision might be upheld whereas a non-compete might not.

• Broker-dealer firms that are signatories to the Protocol for Broker Recruiting are subject to additional requirements. Under this protocol, a departing employee may be permitted to take certain information regarding clients they serviced while at the firm to a new employer and use that information to solicit clients. Non-signatories are not bound to this protocol and can sue departing brokers for violating the terms of otherwise enforceable covenants.

Non-competes and so-called garden leave provisions are regularly included in termination documents. The enforceability of these covenants vary based on jurisdiction, with courts evaluating provisions based on duration and geographic scope.

New York

New York law disfavours non-compete agreements as a general rule. However, such agreements may be enforceable if the restrictions are reasonable and are intended to protect a legitimate interest. A court can enforce a non-compete only if the covenant:

• is no greater than required to protect an employer’s legitimate interests;
• does not impose undue hardship on the employee;
• does not cause injury to the public; or
• is reasonable in duration and geographic scope.

California

California law does not allow post-employment non-compete or non-solicit agreements except agreements involving the sale or dissolution of a business. California law protects employer confidential information and prohibits current or former employees from using employer confidential information in the solicitation of employees.