Secondment Agreement Switzerland

This rule is intended to ensure that the Swiss social security authorities have a debtor in Switzerland. Under EU/EFTA agreements, the worker must expressly consent to the payment of contributions (so-called article 21, paragraph 2, Regulation (EC) 9871/09). However, outside of the EU/EFTA agreements (Countries with bilateral social security agreements or non-partner countries), the worker is automatically required to pay social security contributions without explicit consent. To this end, he must register with the OASI compensation fund at his place of residence or, if not established in Switzerland, with the OASI compensation fund in the workplace. In practice, it remains to be seen to what extent the authorities will apply these restrictions to intragroup detachments. So far, we have not seen the Swiss immigration authorities refer to the terms of the new SECO directive. However, it is entirely possible that immigration authorities will incorporate these changes into their application procedures over time. Companies that regularly process projects in Switzerland as part of an intragroup credit endowment should review their staffing procedures and documents. Switzerland has bilateral social security agreements with many countries outside the EU/EFTA. Currently, they are Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada/Quebec, China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan), Chile, India, Israel, Japan, Macedonia, Montenegro, the Philippines, the Republic of San Marino, Serbia, South Korea, Turkey, Uruguay and the United States. If there is an agreement signed between Switzerland and a country in which an employer wishes to send a worker, the rules of secondment in the European Union are similar. The company must apply for a certificate of secondment so that the worker can work there, while remaining subject to social security in Switzerland.

According to RLSA, foreign credit staff in Switzerland are generally illegal. However, in 2003, SECO adopted a directive excluding intragroup credit allocation (i.e. the adequacy of loans between related companies of the same group, “detachments”) from most of the restrictive provisions of the RLSA. In particular, detachments were not subject to the RLSA`s authorization requirements and detachments from abroad were allowed within a group. However, in recent years, SECO has already interpreted the 2003 directive increasingly restrictively, due to the sharp increase in the number of secondments and, in particular, the creation of “staff companies” (also known as global employment companies), which recruit employees centrally to lend exclusively to related companies. Many international agreements allow employers to pay social security contributions only in the region of origin of their employees. As far as a worker is concerned, the detached status may be worth it, because he does not lose the benefits of social security in his country of origin.

Comments are closed.