Employment in Financial Services

Articles 5 and 123 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States provide express protection of labour rights and establish that legal rights are protected by the Federal Labour Law (the FLL).

Pursuant to article 5 thereof, no-one can be stopped from providing services in industry, commerce, or any other activity, provided it is not illegal; thus, individuals may only be prohibited from performing their duties as financial services employees if there is a legal justification. The activity may only be prohibited by a judicial declaration. Also, the law will define occupations that require a licence, the conditions to be met to obtain that licence and the issuing authorities.

Furthermore, no contract or provision that affects an individual’s freedom will be enforced.

All employers and employees within the private financial services sector are primarily subject to the FLL. Additionally, financial entities and their employees are subject to different laws and general provisions depending on the entities’ core business and activities, such as:

• Law to Regulate Finance Associations;
• Credit Institutions Law;
• General Provisions of Credit Institutions, issued by the supervisory authorities;
• Law to Regulate Credit Information Entities;
• General Law of Auxiliary Credit Organizations and Activities;
• Investment Funds Law;
• Popular Savings and Credit Law;
• Law to Regulate Technological Finance Institutions;
• General Provisions of Technological Finance Institutions, issued by the supervisory authorities;
• Law of Transparency and Promotion of Competition in Guaranteed Credit;
• Securities Market Law;
• Law for the Transparency and Regulation of Financial Services;
• Federal Law for the Prevention and Identity of Transactions with Illegally Obtained Resources;
• General Provisions applicable to securities operations carried out by counsel, managers and employees of financial entities and other obligated parties, issued by the supervisory authorities;
• Insurance and Bonding Institutes Law; and
• Insurance and Bonding Agents Regulations.

Some of the financial entities regulated are the following (Financial Entities):

• controlling entities (controlling entities of financial groups);
• credit institutions;
• credit information entities;
• multiple purpose financial entities;
• exchange bureaus and brokerage houses;
• auxiliary credit organisations;
• technological finance institutions;
• investment funds;
• financial cooperative associations and community finance entities; and
• insurance and bond institutes.

Authorities that regulate and supervise the compliance of financial laws and provisions are the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV), National Insurance and Bonding Commission (CNSF), National Commission of Retirement Savings Fund (CONSAR), National Commission for Financial Service Consumer Protection, Bank of Mexico, and the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP).

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.

Pursuant to the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identity of Transactions with Illegally Obtained Resources, all acts carried out by financial entities are considered a vulnerable activity; therefore, financial entities must:

• set forth measures and procedures to prevent and detect acts and operations;
• file reports to the SHCP regarding acts, operations and services carried out by clients and employees if they suspect illegal resources are involved; and
• keep for at least 10 years any information and documents related to the identification of clients and users.

Given the above, if any action, operation or service is identified as undertaken with illegal resources or there is a breach of any of the provisions outlined in the above law, employers must inform the SHCP and prosecutor.

Also, if officers and general managers no longer comply with the legal requirements to occupy their positions (eg, not having a satisfactory credit record, or no longer being in good standing), financial entities may inform the CNBV or CNSF, as applicable, so the authorities may disqualify or remove those individuals from their positions.

Furthermore, if there is a breach of the code of conduct, the regulatory comptroller must inform the board of directors and keep such information available to the CNBV at all times. The board of directors will be in charge of establishing disciplinary measures.

Finally, if employees breach psychological risk prevention obligations (see question 11), employers must inform the labour authorities to impose corresponding sanctions.

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.

There are no particular rules or legal provisions concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. Nevertheless, it is common practice to execute termination agreements with officers and general managers whereby non-disclosure, non-compete and non-solicitation provisions are set forth by the parties. The use of non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in termination agreements is only recommended for very specific employees and must be negotiated when the employment is terminated.

Plain non-compete and non-solicitation provisions binding employees after termination are not enforceable under Mexican law, because the Mexican Constitution grants individuals the right to perform any job, industry, commerce or work as long it is legal and not prohibited by a judicial or governmental decision.

Post-employment non-compete obligations, which are treated as an exception, must be agreed upon in connection to specific activities that may be deemed unfair competition, and may be enforced with economic compensation.

The period of enforceability must be proportional to:

• the number of years of employment;
• the level of information and importance of the position;
• the economic compensation; and
• the scope of the non-compete obligations.

Unfair competition and solicitation – either for business, or to induce other individuals to leave the company, while the employment contract between an individual and employer is in effect – may be considered misconduct. This misconduct is a cause of termination without notice for the company, and therefore it is feasible to enforce it.

The terms and conditions must be specifically addressed in writing, within the employment termination agreement, making express reference to the importance of the information, potential competition, activities that may be deemed unfair competition, intellectual property, and commercial advantages. The compensation paid is usually similar to or above the income of the employee while he or she was active with the company. Clawback and damages payments for breach of contract are standard practices.

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.