Employment in Financial Services

Financial services regulators like the RBI, SEBI and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) regulate employees through prescribed frameworks and their organisation-specific rules.

The obligations for the conduct of employees in financial services are determined depending upon the type of organisation: public sector banks (majorly owned by the state) or private banks; sectors (banking, non-banking, insurance, capital market); regions (different local laws); and level of seniority (liability of officers or manager is different from regular employees or clerical staff).  Though there are no statutory standards, judicial pronouncements have set a higher threshold of duty of care for employees in the financial services sectors. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Harinarayan Seet v Andhra Bank[1] held dismissal of service as a proportionate punishment for dereliction of duty by banking employees, which would have otherwise attracted a lesser penalty for employees in less-critical sectors.

In terms of general labour legislation also applicable to financial services employees, financial services organisations fall under the definition of “commercial establishments”, whose definition has been laid down by the Shops & Commercial Establishments Act (state level). They provide certain conduct-specific obligations, for example, a prohibition against discrimination, suspension or dismissal for misconduct.

The other major piece of labour legislation that lays down standards of conduct is the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (IESOA). However, its applicability to commercial establishments or to a specific industry is dependent upon state-wide laws. For example, the states of Haryana and Karnataka have notified the application of the IESOA to commercial establishments with a minimum of 50 employees. This implies that financial services institutions in these states, meeting the above criteria, are bound to comply with the IESOA. Upon the application of the IESOA, the establishments are required to submit to the certifying officer draft standing orders proposed for their establishment, which should cover acceptable standards for employees.

In the banking sector, employees of public-sector banks, private-sector banks and foreign banks are bound by the obligations laid down by the RBI and their organisation rules. The provisions of these rules, which are different from other industries, are stricter: observance of secrecy; prohibition against using influence to secure employment for family members; bypassing regular compliance checks for availing of banking facilities; prohibition against media contributions, participating in politics or standing for election; demonstrations prejudicial to the public interest; and acceptance of gifts in an official capacity.

In terms of financial propriety, employees must not indulge in speculation in stocks and shares, but must avoid personal insolvency and even disclose their moveable and immoveable assets. During employment, they are also forbidden from engaging in any outside employment (stipendiary or honorary) without the prior approval of the organisation. Higher managerial employees are subject to additional scrutiny. Those belonging to public sector enterprises are brought within the jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Commission, the apex vigilance institution. It is due to the gravity of corruption cases that the senior management of private sector banks is also included within the ambit of “public servant”, which usually includes employees of only public sector organisations. This was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v Ramesh Gelli[2].  The organisations in the insurance and capital markets sectors also have similar institution-wide conduct and disciplinary rules.

Directors of organisations in the financial services sector may also be subject to duties stated in Schedule IV of the Companies Act 2013 and the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations 2015.

When it comes to outsourcing activities, financial institutions formulate a board-approved “Code of Conduct” as part of the “Outsourcing Agreement”, which is to be complied with by the outsourced service providers and their employees.[3]

Though financial services employees are held to a higher set of moral standards, their right to participate in trade union actions for voicing their concerns has been upheld time and again. Recently, the Madras High Court in the case of D Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev v The Disciplinary Authority and Circle Development Officer and State Bank of India[4] observed bank officers’ right to unionise.  However, the right of bank employees to go on a strike gets limited since banks and other financial institutions are declared as ‘Public Utility Services’ (“PUS”). Accordingly, while they are not barred from going on strike, they must adhere to certain pre-requisites namely service of notice of at least 6 weeks before going on a strike, prohibition of any strike within 14 days from date of service of above notice, prohibition of going on a strike before the expiry of the date of that strike and non-authorization of any strike during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or 7 days after the conclusion of such a proceeding. Upon being declared a PUS, the concerned industry must adhere to these conditions failing which the strikes would be declared as illegal.

Financial entities must establish, implement and apply, among other things:

• confidentiality policies;
• policies for internal control to confirm the acts, operations and services of individuals are carried out in an ethical, professional and legal manner;
• policies regarding the prevention of acts and operations with illegal resources;
• policies to prevent psychological risk factors;
• policies that allow the identification, follow-up and control of risks inherent to operations; and
• conflict of interest resolution policies.

Under the general provisions applicable to operations with securities carried out by members of the board of directors, officers and employees of financial entities and other obligated parties, the principles that must be complied with are the following:

• transparency in operations;
• equal opportunity before all other market participants in sureties operations;
• compliance with fair stock market customs and practices;
• absence of a conflict of interest; and
• prevention of improper behaviour that may have as its origin the use of privileged or confidential information.

Policies, manuals and codes must also include guidelines for the resolution of potential conflicts of interest, as well as the mechanisms to avoid the existence of such conflicts.

Financial entities must inform the CNBV annually, within 15 days, a report on the conduct, operations, and services of individuals. If any act or operation with illegal resources is detected, financial entities must inform the authorities immediately, including the CNBV and the SHCP.

The board of directors of operating companies of investment funds, distribution entities, and stock appraisers of investment funds must approve a code of conduct, which must consider:

• activities in compliance with the applicable laws;
• internal control rules for the compliance of provisions and policies contained in the code, including investment provisions issued by the CNBV;
• security mechanisms to ensure confidential information is used solely for authorised purposes and security measures to protect clients’ files from fraud, robbery or misuse;
• an obligation on the general manager, officers and employees to conduct themselves in a fair, honest and professional manner in the performance of their activities; and
• a prohibition on officers, employees and proxies executing any type of operation with the public that contravenes market practices.

Members of the board of directors, the general manager, officers, regulatory comptrollers, proxies, and other employees must immediately report the existence of illegal or unethical conduct or activity to the regulatory comptroller.

Depending on the regulatory status of the employing entity and, as the case may be, on the exact activities of a financial service employee, a financial service employee needs to adhere to certain code of conduct rules (eg, regarding transparency and care, documentation and accountability).

Supervised companies in Switzerland are, in principle, required to set up an organisation that ensures the compliance with Swiss financial market laws and its statutory code of conduct rules. For this purpose, among others, companies are required to issue regulations that their employees must follow.

Under Swiss financial market laws, code of conduct rules are generally based on abstract statutory rules and concretized by recognised privately organised associations.

In particular, several professional organisations (eg, the Swiss Bankers Association or the Asset Management Association) and self-regulated organisations issue their own set of code of conduct rules that members are required to follow.

The general legal standards on termination of employment are also applicable to employees in the financial services sector. India is not an “at-will” jurisdiction but is also not an “employment-for-life” jurisdiction. In general, termination of employment may be carried out for reasonable cause or on account of misconduct. In cases of termination on any ground other than misconduct, the employee must be provided with prior notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof. The body of laws that govern employee rights around termination are the IDA, state-specific shops and establishments acts, standing orders, and the employment contract. Workmen (basically non-managers) have additional protection in terms of the right to retrenchment compensation when terminated.

Under the Constitution and the FLL, an employee has the right to secure employment (employment stability right) and an employer cannot terminate an employment contract without legal cause.

An employer may only dismiss an employee under one or more of the legal causes provided for in article 47 of the FLL (eg, lack of ethics, dishonesty, violence, harassment, absence more than three times in a month without authorisation, disobedience, and intoxication). Dismissal should be carried out within the one month after the employer becomes aware of the legal cause for termination (statute of limitations).

The FLL requires employers to provide the employee with a written notice of dismissal in which the date and causes are expressly described. A lack of written notice makes the termination unlawful and triggers the severance obligation described below.

In addition, financial entities may end the employment of individuals without notice in the following circumstances:

• if a general manager or officer no longer complies with the legal requirements to occupy their position (see question 2);
• if the CNBV or the CNSF, as applicable, disqualifies, removes, or relieves individuals from their positions; and
• if a brokerage house’s proxies are no longer authorised by the CNBV.

If there are no legal grounds to justify the termination and an employee is dismissed, the dismissal is wrongful and the employee has the right to:

• be reinstated (article 49 of the FLL establishes the cases where an employer is exempt from reinstating an employee, for example employees of trust); or
• a severance payment (three months of salary, plus 12 days of salary for each year of service capped at twice the general minimum wage of the geographic area where the employee rendered services, plus 20 days of salary per year of service, and, if applicable, back pay.

These obligations are only enforceable (reinstatement and payment of severance) if the dismissal is deemed wrongful by the labour authorities in their corresponding resolution. Nevertheless, if there are no legal grounds that justify the termination, it is common practice to pay the severance in advance if there is no intention to reinstate the employee after termination.

When termination occurs, financial entities must inform the self-regulated bodies to revoke powers of attorney within five days. The self-regulated body must then inform the CNBV of the revocation. For the removal or resignation of the general manager and officers, financial entities must inform the corresponding authority within five to ten days, depending on the type of financial entity.

For the termination of employment of employees in general positions, there is no particular document to execute other than a termination document (resignation or employment termination agreement and release).

There are no specific rules or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of an employee in the financial services sector. However, because changes in the strategic and executive management of, in particular, regulated companies such as banks, insurance companies, securities firms, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers are subject to a prior authorization by FINMA, the timing of termination and re-hiring of particular persons should be considered.

The general rules on the termination of an employment relationship apply under Swiss law: any employment contract concluded for an indefinite period may be unilaterally terminated by both employer and employee, subject to the contractual or (if no contractual notice period was agreed) statutory notice periods for any reason (ordinary termination).

The termination notice needs to be physically received before the notice period can start, meaning the notice needs to be received by the employee before the end of a month so that the notice period can start on the first day of the next month. If notice is not received before the end of the month, the notice period would start the month following the receipt of the notice. A termination notice might be either delivered by mail or personally.

Swiss law does not provide for payment in lieu of a notice period. The only option in this regard is to either send the employee on garden leave or to agree within the termination agreement to terminate the employment relationship per an earlier termination date than the one provided for in the termination notice.

As a general rule, an employment contract may be terminated by either party for any reason. However, Swiss statutory law provides for protection from termination by notice for both employers and employees, distinguishing between abusive and untimely notices of termination.

Based on social policy concerns, the employer must observe certain waiting periods, during which a notice cannot validly be served (so-called untimely notice). Such waiting periods apply (art. 336c CO), for example, during compulsory military or civil defence service, full- or part-time absence from work due to illness or an accident, or during an employee’s pregnancy and 16 weeks following the birth of the child. Any notice given by the employer during these waiting periods is void. Any notice given before the respective period is effective, but once the special situation has occurred and for the period it lasts, the running of the applicable notice period is suspended and only continues after the end of the period in question.

In addition, Swiss civil law defines certain grounds based on which terminations are considered abusive (article 336 CO). Termination by the employer might be considered abusive (eg, if it is based on a personal characteristic of the other party (eg, gender, race, age), or if the other party exercises a right guaranteed by the Swiss Federal Constitution (eg, religion or membership in a political party) unless the exercise of this right violates an obligation of the contract of employment or is seriously prejudicial to the work climate). If the employer abusively terminates the employment contract, the employer has to pay damages to the employee and a penalty of up to six months' remuneration (article 336a CO). Nevertheless, an abusive termination remains valid.

Regarding settlement agreements, Swiss employment law allows the conclusion of such agreements, but there are strict limits on the parties’ freedom of contract. Termination agreements may not be concluded that circumvent statutory provisions on employee protection. According to Swiss case law, termination agreements are usually valid and enforceable if both parties make real concessions, and if the agreement is also favourable for the employee. To conclude a termination agreement initiated by the employer, the employee must also be granted a sufficient reflection period. No further formalities need to be observed when concluding termination agreements, although it is generally advisable to have them in writing.