I have question but let me try to give the background of this situation first. We had a customer that works for a state agency that collects money for the state. The checks received are payable to the government agency. She told our teller that they have changed their procedures and she can receive cash for these checks if the money is good. The bad thing is that she would bring checks not drawn on our bank, so how would we know if the funds are good. She did things wrong on several counts. 1. Cashing checks payable to a government agency, 2. Cashing third party checks on a bank not on us. This is the background.

The investigator for the state came to the bank and wanted to know how this one check in particular was processed by our bank. I talked to our legal counsel and they told me I could give this to then because it was money owed to the agency. Did not need a subponea. I asked them to provide me a request anyway for information. We know our teller was not benefiting from this transaction so in my opinion it was not a employee problem, but she just violated bank policy and procedures.

I let the investigator talk to our teller on a speaker phone with me present. Our branch operations adminstrator and HR Director have indicated to me that I did wrong by letting them talk to her without HR present. I disagree with this since we are certain it was not a HR problem because our employee did not receive money for handling this transaction. Their purpose in talking to her was to find out the teller procedures in this type matter and if the employee of the state had indicated why this was to be handled in this manner. It was my opinion that they were not interagating the teller. Should I have gotten HR involved in this situation?

I'd think that any time an employee is going to be questioned by a state investigator or law enforcement official regarding something you've already gotten your bank's legal counsel involved in... the employee him/herself ought to have the benefit/right of legal representation standing beside them... and/or (at the very *least*) someone from HR to help look out for their best interest (and the bank's!) in the room!

Also, you say an employee "violated bank policy and procedures", but "it was not a employee problem". Those 2 statements don't go together in my mind. What sort of a situation *would* you get HR involved in, if not when an employee violates bank policy and procedures, necessitating an investigation by the state and legal counsel to get involved??? Seems to me this IS an employee problem. Perhaps not in the sense of the employee benefitting financially from the transaction, but regardless of WHY the employee broke all your policies and procedures, don't you think he/she needs to be retrained and/or disciplined?

I agree it is a employee problem. What I should have said was HR doesn't need to be involved when they talked to her because an officer of the bank was present. The employee did not benefit from the transaction or in other words the customer did not pay her to conduct this transaction. In my opinion HR would become involved only to decide to either terminate the employee for violating bank policy and procedures or place her on probation.

At the time of the discussion all this was a fact finding mission and how the state was going to deal with their employee.

1) I would not have agreed to this interview without legal counsel present.

2) HR is an internal matter and they cannot "protect" either the employee or the bank in any manner nor could an "officer" of the bank - they are not legal counsel.

3) How do you know that the teller did not benefit? His or her word only?

4) If you had no official written authorization from the State Agency to cash checks outside of what the person told the teller, I would be adding up the total amount of the cashed checks and telling the board to get ready to chalk up an operational loss.

rlcarey, we will have to pay the amount of cashed checks if they request to be reimbursed. I agree with you that HR is an internal matter and they did not have to be involved at this point even though they will be when they deal with the teller. As far as having legal counsel at the meeting, it was not felt that this was not an interagation but just fact finding.

Thanks for your comments.

"As far as having legal counsel at the meeting, it was not felt that this was not an interagation but just fact finding."

I guess my point was that anytime you enter into a conversation with a third party where the bank may have been in the wrong and could possibly suffer a loss or, due the outcome of the "fact finding" meeting, a possible criminal prosecutiion of an employee could result, I would make sure that the bank's attorney was either present or is at least privy to the situation.

Our bank legal counsel was privy to the information. Thanks for your input.