Employment in Financial Services

As a matter of general Isle of Man employment law, employers must give employees written particulars of their terms and conditions of employment within four weeks of them starting work, pursuant to section 8 of the Employment Act 2006. This mandatory information includes (but is not limited to) the names of the employer and employee; the date of commencement of employment and the date when continuous service began for statutory employment rights purposes; scale or rate of remuneration; hours of work; and holiday entitlement. Typically, a written employment contract will contain the relevant information and satisfy these requirements.  

Financial institutions should also ensure that contracts of employment reinforce the requirements of meeting and maintaining the employee’s “fit and proper” status.

Employees must be provided with an employment contract across the different jurisdictions in the UAE.  This applies to all employees, regardless of whether they work in the financial services industry.

In the DIFC, the DIFC Employment Law requires employers to provide their employees with a written contract that must specify the following:

• the parties’ names;
• the start date;
• the salary and any allowances to be provided to the employee;
• the applicable pay period;
• hours and days of work;
• vacation leave and pay;
• notice to be given by either party to terminate employment; 
• the employee’s job title;
• confirmation as to whether the contract is for an indefinite period or for a fixed term;
• the place of work;
• applicable disciplinary rules and grievances procedures;
• the probation period;
• a reference to any applicable policies and procedures (including any codes of conduct) and where these can be accessed; and
• any other matter that may be prescribed in any regulations issued under the DIFC Employment Law.

In the ADGM, the ADGM Employment Regulations requires employers to provide their employees with a written contract that must specify the following:

• the parties’ names;
• the start date;
• remuneration;
• the applicable pay period;
• hours and days of work; and
• any terms and conditions relating to:
  • vacation leave and pay, national holiday entitlement and pay;
  • sick leave and sick pay;
  • the notice period that either party is required to give to the other in order to terminate employment;
  • the employee’s job title;
  • whether the employment is for an indefinite or fixed term;
  • the place of work;
  • any disciplinary rules or grievance procedures applicable to the employee; and

any other matter that may be prescribed by the employer.

Yes, please see question 2.

Any individual performing a prescribed key role must be pre-approved by the IoM FSA and be certified as “fit and proper”. The IoM FSA has issued detailed guidance for financial institutions that set out the criteria that they normally apply in considering the fitness and propriety of individuals who wish to undertake Controlled Functions. Appendix 2 of the guidance contains a table setting out which Controlled Functions require consent and which functions are notification only.

Guidance can be found here: https://www.iomfsa.im/media/2464/regulatoryguidancefitnessandpropriety.pdf

As noted in question 2 -, employees undertaking certain regulated roles must obtain the pre-approval of the relevant regulatory authority.  The regulators in each case will assess the fitness and propriety of the relevant individual.
 

Employees who carry out a Controlled Function will have a duty of responsibility to ensure compliance with the financial institution’s ongoing regulatory requirements. 

There are no provisions that lay down enhanced responsibilities for a particular category of employees in the financial services sector.
 

The IoM FSA maintains a public register of entities that are regulated by them. The register lists the classes of regulated activity that the licence holder is authorised to carry out. However, there is no prescribed list or public register for financial services employees that individuals need to be included in to undertake regulated activities.

There is no public register of authorised individuals.

There are no prescribed rules relating to compensation payable to financial services employees and any remuneration, bonuses or clawback will be a matter of contract between the financial services employee and the financial institution. Inevitably, this will reflect what is typical in the market for experienced, qualified, financial services personnel performing the role for which they are applying or are currently carrying out.

Both the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised entities. In particular, the guidance identifies that the governing body of an authorised entity ought to consider the risk to which the firm could be exposed to as a result of the conduct or behaviour of its employees, and to consider the ratio and balance between fixed and variable remuneration components, the nature of the duties and functions performed by the relevant employees, the assessment criteria against which performance based components of remuneration are to be awarded, and the integrity and objectivity of any performance assessment against that criteria.

The IoM FSA’s “Training and Competence Framework” sets the minimum standards that must be achieved by individuals working in the financial services industry. The framework sets out the IoM FSA’s expectations regarding competency, not only for employees who carry out a Controlled Function (and who are subject to fitness and propriety criteria) but for all staff.

The framework is split into two segments: general training and competence requirements for all staff; and training and competence expectations for Controlled Functions and Other Functions – essentially additional expectations for individuals undertaking or aspiring to undertake certain Controlled Functions or other designated functions.

The IoM FSA also sets requirements concerning continuing professional development (CPD) for different types of regulated entities and staff at different levels. For example, Rule 8.5 of the Rule Book specifies that directors and key persons within a licence holder must undertake a minimum of 25 hours of relevant CPD per year or meet the level prescribed by their professional body (where higher). There are further CPD requirements on individuals who provide investment advice to retail investors.

Even absent a prescribed minimum level of CPD, the IoM FSA believes that ongoing training and CPD for all financial services staff and officers is good practice. Such training and CPD should be relevant to the role of the individual and take account of new developments (ie, changes to tax legislation, new regulatory requirements and new products).

The DFSA General Rulebook requires authorised entities to ensure that the Senior Executive Officer, Compliance Officers, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer, must complete a minimum of 15 hours of continuing professional development in each calendar year.  This continuing professional development must be relevant to the employee’s role and professional skill and knowledge, and consist of structured activities, such as courses, seminars, lectures, conferences, workshops, web-based seminars or e-learning, which require a commitment of 30 minutes or more.  The employee must also ensure that they maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

The FSRA General Rulebook requires an authorised entity to ensure that its directors and senior managers are fit and proper and its guidance suggests that whether any training has been untaken or is required should be considered.  In addition, an authorised entity should satisfy itself that an employee continues to be competent and capable of performing the role, has kept abreast of market, product, technology, legislative and regulatory developments that are relevant to the role, through training or other means, and is able to apply this knowledge.

Yes, financial institutions are required to comply with the rules and standards of conduct as set out in the Rule Book (as a minimum).

Financial institutions must notify the IoM FSA of any departure or intended departure of an employee who undertakes a Controlled Function within ten business days. Furthermore, where a financial institution discovers an event which may lead to a final warning being given to, or other serious disciplinary action being taken against, any of its employees, the financial institution must inform the IoM FSA within ten business days. The notice must specify the event, and the name of the employee where the employee holds a Controlled Function or is a “key person”. Where the employee is not a “key person” and does not hold a Controlled Function role, the financial institution is not required to inform the IoM FSA of the name of the employee unless – following an investigation – the employee is given a final warning or other serious disciplinary action is taken (in which case, the financial institution will have to inform the IoM FSA of the employee’s name at that point).

In the DIFC, the DFSA General Rulebook provides that authorised individuals must adhere to six principles, as follows:

• Principle 1 – Integrity
• Principle 2 – Due skill, care and diligence
• Principle 3 – Market conduct
• Principle 4 – Relations with the DFSA
• Principle 5 – Management, systems and control
• Principle 6 – Compliance
   

In the ADGM, the FSRA General Rulebook provides that authorized individuals must adhere to eleven principles, as follows:

• Principle 1 – Integrity
• Principle 2 – Due skill, care and diligence
• Principle 3 – Management, systems and control
• Principle 4 – Resources
• Principle 5 – Market conduct
• Principle 6 – Information and interests
• Principle 7 – Conflicts of Interest
• Principle 8 – Suitability
• Principle 9 – Customer assets and money
• Principle 10 – Relations with regulators
• Principle 11 – Compliance with high standards of corporate governance

Yes, please see question 9.

Financial institutions in the Isle of Man are required to comply with various statutory requirements. Breaches of those statutory requirements impose an obligation on the relevant entity to self-report to the IoM FSA. While ordinarily, businesses will endeavour not to supply information about individuals within the business to the regulator as part of this reporting, from time to time this may be necessary to comply with their regulatory obligations. Where this is the case, usually the regulator will be asked to use their powers of compulsion to seek the information rather than such information being given voluntarily. This is particularly the case where the regulator may have formed concerns about an individual’s fitness and propriety and wishes to investigate this further.

Regulators from other jurisdictions may use certain reciprocal agreements and reciprocal enforcement legislation to seek information from the IoM FSA or more directly from a financial services business. Where such requests are made, this may include information about individual employees (ordinarily those exercising Controlled Functions). However, any mechanism for reciprocal enforcement or exchange of information is subject to scrutiny and such information would normally only be offered by an employer under compulsion.

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.

Yes, from 1 January 2017 financial institutions must have an internal whistleblowing policy in place. Financial services employees are encouraged to first raise issues with their employer. However, employees may also raise serious concerns with the IoM FSA if they remain unsatisfied at the end of the employer’s process.

Under employment legislation, if an employee is dismissed because they have made a “protected disclosure” (ie, blown the whistle), that dismissal is automatically unfair. Compensatory damages for whistleblowing are uncapped in the Isle of Man Employment and Equality Tribunal.

While there is no sector-specific guidance on harassment in the workplace, all employers have a legal duty to ensure that employees are not harassed at work (this would extend to bullying and being subjected to discrimination). Failure to have and enforce appropriate policies on bullying and harassment is likely to impair any defence that the employer may raise to a legal claim because it will not be able to show that it took “all reasonable steps” to prevent such acts.

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.

Terminating an employee’s employment must occur in accordance with the terms of their contract, otherwise the employer risks a claim for wrongful dismissal.

Additionally, financial institutions have certain notification obligations to the IoM FSA as outlined in question 10. Where a settlement agreement is entered into in respect of the exit of an employee and a factor in their departure is a disciplinary issue, the IoM FSA will usually wish to know the terms of, and circumstances leading to, the settlement agreement. In particular, the IoM FSA will want to understand whether the reason for the termination was a systemic failure on the part of the financial institution or an issue with the individual and their capability or conduct. The settlement agreement cannot prevent an employee from making a protected disclosure and must not require the employee to warrant that they have not made a protected disclosure.

As noted in question 7, the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised persons.  In this regard, both sets of guidance provide that where an authorised entity provides discretionary payouts on termination of employment (either by way of severance payments, or other payments, such as “golden parachutes”), these should be subject to appropriate limits or shareholder approval.  In addition, they should be aligned with the firm’s overall financial status and performance.

The IoM FSA does not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. Post-termination restrictive covenants will be a matter of contract and will typically include non-compete, non-solicitation and non-dealing restrictions. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector. Restraint of trade provisions are, in principle, contrary to public policy as a result of which it is for the employer to justify the length and scope of the restrictive covenant and show that it goes no further than necessary to protect its legitimate business interests. If a restraint is considered to be excessive, the courts will not generally rewrite or modify it to make it enforceable and, therefore, the whole of a defective covenant could fall away or be of no effect.

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.