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.

The UAE has four different regulators responsible for the authorisation and supervision of banks, insurers, and other financial institutions.

There are two regulators "on-shore" in the UAE, namely, (i) the UAE Central Bank, which is the state institution responsible for banking and insurance regulation, as well as monetary policy, and has authority over all licensed financial institutions in the UAE, including those in the financial free zones; and (ii) the Emirates Securities and Commodities Authorities (ESCA)  that regulates markets, listed companies, and securities brokers.

There are two financial free zones in the UAE, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), who were established as special economic zones with independent jurisdictions through amendment to the UAE Constitution.  Within the free zones, the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) is the regulator of the DIFC and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) is the regulator of the ADGM.

As the DIFC and ADGM free zones have been established as special economic zones in which financial services are conducted, most of the applicable legislation in the UAE which governs financial services is found in the two free zones.  Therefore, unless expressly referenced, the responses for the UAE in this guide consider the position in the DIFC and ADGM only.

The Dubai Financial Services Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the DIFC.  The key legislation is the Regulatory Law of 2004, as amended, which is administered by the DFSA and is described as the cornerstone legislation of the regulatory regime.

The ADGM Financial Services Regulatory Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the ADGM.  The key legislation is the Financial Services and Markets Regulations (FSMR), which sets out the legislative and regulatory framework for financial services in the ADGM.  The FSMR was modelled on the UK’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other related legislation.

Finally, all employees in the private sector (excluding the two financial free zones) are subject to Federal Decree-law No. 33 of 2021, as amended (the Labour Law).  In the DIFC, employees are subject to DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019, as amended (the DIFC Employment Law) and in the ADGM, employees are subject to the ADGM Employment Regulations 2019 (the ADGM Employment Regulations).  In addition to the employment legislation described above, a number of other laws will be applicable to employees in the UAE, including Federal Decree-law No. 30 of 2021 containing the Penal Code.

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.

Both the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook provide that where an authorised firm requests the withdrawal of an authorised individual, they must provide to the regulator details of any circumstances in which they consider the individual is no longer fit and proper.  Where the individual is to be dismissed or has requested to resign, the firm must provide to the regulator a statement of the reason, or reasons, for the dismissal or resignation.

In addition, the DFSA and FSRA General Rulebooks contain broad obligations on any authorised firm to report to the regulator if it becomes aware of a range of occurrences, including any matter which could have a significant adverse effect on the authorised firm’s reputation, or a matter in relation the authorised firm which could result in serious adverse financial consequences to the financial system or to other firms, or a significant breach of a rule by the authorised firm or its employees.

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 DFSA and FSRA Rulebooks do not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in both free zones to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector.  In addition, whilst the courts in both the DIFC and ADGM will award injunctive relief, there is no similar right in the federal courts.  This means that the enforceability of an injunctive order outside of the geographic scope of the two free zones is uncertain.