Employment in Financial Services

Under Swiss civil law, there is no requirement to apply pre-screening measures. However, while not a statutory requirement under Swiss financial market laws per se, companies subject to these laws apply pre-screening measures to ensure that a prospective financial services employee meets the requirements set forth by these laws. In particular, regulated companies such as banks, securities firms, insurance companies, fund management companies, managers of collective investment schemes and asset managers are required to obtain authorisation from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) relating to strategic and executive management and each change thereto.

As a general rule, the higher the responsibility or position of a person, the more requirements financial services employees may need to fulfil. Persons holding executive or overall management functions (eg, a member of the board or members of the senior management) are required to fulfil certain requirements set forth by the applicable Swiss financial market regulations. Such requirements may include providing current CVs showing relevant work experience and education as well as excerpts from the debt and criminal register. It may also include providing various declarations (eg, concerning pending and concluded proceedings, qualified participations and other mandates). Furthermore, financial services employees holding certain control functions (eg, compliance officer, risk officer and their deputies) may also be required to prove that they are suitable for the position by providing, for example, a current CV showing relevant work experience and education.

In the DIFC, an individual who performs a “licensed function” must be approved in advance by the DFSA.   The roles which fall within the meaning of an authorised person for the DFSA includes someone appointed as:

• the Senior Executive Officer, who has ultimate responsibility for the day-to- day management, supervision and control of one or more (or all) of an authorised firm’s financial services carried on, in or from the DIFC;
• the Finance Officer;
• Compliance Officer;, and
• Money Laundering Reporting Officer. 

Where a firm proposes to appoint an authorised individual, an application to the DFSA must be made in advance; the DFSA will make an assessment of the  individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an authorised individual. The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role, and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

In the ADGM, an individual who performs a “controlled function” must be approved in advance by the ADGM.  A controlled function includes someone appointed as the Senior Executive Officer, Finance Officer, Compliance Officer, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.

Where a firm proposes to appoint someone in a controlled function, an application to the ADGM must be made in advance, The ADGM will make an assessment of  that individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an approved individual.  The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

There are no specific whistleblowing laws in Switzerland, but employees have a right to report grievances and misconduct to their employer, provided that they do not commit a breach of a fiduciary duty or cause damage (eg, malicious false reports).

However, employees must also report material facts or incidents of misconduct and the misconduct of other employees discovered in the course of their work to their employer under the employee's duty of loyalty.

On the other hand, an employee’s duty of loyalty and, in particular, an employee’s statutory duty of confidentiality flowing from it may also give rise to a duty to not report.

Based on the current legal situation, there may be a conflict between an employee’s need to report grievances (internally or externally) and a possible duty to not report with regard to an external report. An attempt to resolve this conflict through legislation has failed, and a new attempt to introduce whistleblowing legislation in Switzerland is not expected anytime soon.

Concerning whistleblowing by employees to a public authority or even to the public, employees are regularly prevented from doing so by confidentiality obligations under criminal law. Any justification for such a disclosure will usually only be examined in the context of a criminal investigation against the employee.

However, larger companies have taken measures and set up certain processes to uncover and prevent wrongdoing without having to do so under mandatory laws. For instance, companies have implemented internal or external reporting offices.

When it comes to harassment, an employer is explicitly required to protect employees from sexual harassment (prevention) and to protect any victims from further disadvantages (active protection). According to the Gender Equality Act, victims of sexual harassment may be awarded compensation of up to six months' wages by the courts, in addition to damages and restitution, unless the employer can prove that they have "taken all measures that are necessary and appropriate according to experience to prevent sexual harassment and that they can reasonably be expected to take”. Employers are therefore advised to actively address the issue of sexual harassment (as well as general discrimination and bullying) in the workplace and include it in their regulations or directives.

Whistleblowing

In the DIFC, whistleblowing is addressed both by the DFSA, who introduced its regulatory regime for whistleblowing in 2022 through amendment to its Regulatory Law 2004, as well as the more general obligations contained in the Operating Law of the DIFC Authority.

Under the Regulatory Law, any person who makes a qualifying disclosure to a specified person is entitled to protection under the law.  Similar provisions are contained in the Operating Law.

The disclosure may be made internally within the company, for example, to a director, officer or any person in a management position of the relevant company, or any person designated by that company to receive the disclosure of such information; or externally, for example, to the Registrar, Financial Services Regulator, Office of Data Protection, or criminal law enforcement agency in the UAE.

The qualifying disclosure must relate to the disclosure of information made in good faith, that relates to a reasonable suspicion that a regulated entity, or any of its employees or officers, has or may have, contravened a provision of legislation administered by the DFSA, or has engaged in money laundering, fraud, or other financial crime.

A person making a protected disclosure shall not be subject to any civil or contractual liability for making the disclosure, nor shall they be dismissed or otherwise suffer a detriment or disadvantage in connection with making the disclosure. 

The corresponding DFSA module sets out the DFSA’s expectations that companies should implement appropriate written policies in order to facilitate the reporting of any regulatory concerns by whistleblowers, and to assess, and, where appropriate, escalate regulatory concerns reported to it. 

The ADGM published Guiding Principles on Whistleblowing in December 2022, which whilst non-binding, were designed to assist entities and individuals in the ADGM in establishing whistleblowing frameworks and ensure that potential whistleblowers were encouraged to speak up and were fairly treated when they did so.  In March 2024, the ADGM announced a public consultation on proposals for a whistleblowing framework, which will lead to the introduction of Whistleblower Protections Regulations and amendments to the Employment Regulations.

Harassment

Harassment is not dealt with in the regulatory framework outlined above, but is contained in the applicable employment legislation.

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.