BAR THEFT.com
How Bartenders Steal & How We Catch Them
Home

BARTENDER THEFT: Stolen Money Laundered through Tip Jar

November 28, 2012 20:31 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

The agent observed the following bartenders the evening of June 29th:

-xxxxxx Bar

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian female, 5’10’, medium build, straight dark brown hair pulled back in a bun

                                                                      

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’0”, medium build, short dark hair

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair    )

-xxxxx Bar

·       Bartender 4: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair

 

 

 

 

The agent initially sat at the indoor bar at 23:23.  At that time, all three bartenders were doing what they could to drum up business where possible, though there was about one bartender for every three to four guests.  This meant that a fair amount of conversing was happening, both among bartenders, and between bartenders and guests.

Even so, Xxxxx approached the agent immediately, extending a warm greeting and offering something to drink.

As soon as the agent placed an order, Xxxxx set about making it, using the ice scoop to prepare the drinks and using beverage napkins.  These were the practices each time a drink was made at the inside bar.  She also rang the order in immediately and correctly, which was also standard practice at the indoor bar.

The only shortcoming observed among all bartenders was a failure to attempt to upsell to a more expensive liquor.  This is an easy way of raising check totals without adding significant additional effort that all staff should be encouraged to do.

When the agent approached the outdoor bar farthest from the main entrance, Bartender 4 was not quite so quick to greet the agent, taking four minutes to do so.  Also, Bartender 4 was never seen to use a beverage napkin, and was once observed scooping ice directly into a plastic cup which is a health concern.

Also, Bartender 4 was a bit slow about offering additional drinks to those guests whose had gone empty.  For example, at 10:54, the agent’s glass was empty, but Bartender 4 didn’t offer another drink until 11:03.

Another way in which bar performance was less than ideal was the way bartenders rang in drinks.  For example, they usually rang drinks in immediately after making them.  When extremely busy, though, they even tended to leave one meta-tab open for cash orders, in which they would add each guest’s round, then input the amount of cash handed over.  This method shows a screen with very small text stating the amount of change due, and creates an excellent opportunity for padding the cost by a few dollars in order to illegally increase tips.  Agent found this alarming.

This would not have been a  huge concern but for the fact that the agent observed Bartender 4 ring in multiple “no sales” at times when he produced drinks and put cash in the drawer, including at 11:13 and 11:35.  What’s more, both the “no sale” rings were when Bartender 4 was given cash and told to keep the change. It is suspected that the drawer may be used to launder stolen money.

Also alarming, the agent never received a receipt from any bartenders the entire evening, and even though both bartenders served the agent a draft beer and a well drink, the quoted price was $11.25 inside and $11.50 outside.

                  

The agent also never observed any bartender securing a credit card in order to assure the payment of a tab without the guest offering the card first.

No bartender was ever seen to check the identification of a single guest.  This was in spite of the fact that much of the crowd that evening was young, including several people that were clearly under 30.

Similarly, the  outside bar area had a group of three obviously intoxicated people, who  were slurring, red, and sweating profusely.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this is a serious source of liability to the establishment, as any damages caused to either any individual or any property by a minor who has been served in a restaurant can be considered as grounds for revoking an establishment’s liquor license.  Certainly, this development would be disastrous for ownership, but it is the agent’s opinion that it is worth mentioning this to the staff and reminding them that such a scenario would involve them losing their livelihood too.   Additionally, under New Jersey’s dram shop legislation, such a scenario would also leave the establishment and the individual employee that served a minor or intoxicated person personally liable for damages caused by that person.

Similarly, there were some small problems with correct pouring controls by Bartender 4.  On one occasion at 11:03, Bartender 4 was making a rum and Coke for a guest, and poured it with a 6-count (4 count = 1 1/2 oz).  When the guest asked what the well rum was, Bartender 4 asked “Why?  You don’t like it?”  Then said “There’s a solution to that,” as he added another 3-count of Bacardi to the drink.  This was never rung in as a comp, and when all was said and done, the guest had more than a double for the cost of a shot of well liquor.  Moreover, this is a dangerous amount of alcohol for one drink and possesses a liquor liability issue.

Similarly, at 12:10, Xxxxx told a guest that a soft drink was on her, but was never seen to ring it in as a comp.

It did not seem that Bartender 4 knew the guest, rather, this excessive pour seemed to be a result of inattention and willingness to give away product.  This is a problem that could be remedied by making sure that all bottles, even those who which have irregular  sizes and shapes, have precision metered  pour spouts for the sake of accuracy.

What’s more, a staff member (pictured) was sitting at the bar from 10:52 until after the agent left the area at 11:07.  The entire time that she was there, Bartender 4 was pouring her eight ounce pours of  red wine from Salmon Run,  which he would place on the side of the bar nearest him, so that she would have to reach over the bar to take each drink and put it back each time, as seen in the photo at left.  This made the agent think that they had some reason to hide this activity, and the fact that the agent placed the drink there without it being requested made the agent think this was something that they had done before.  Before the agent left, Bartender 4 filled her drink a total of  three times, a total of nearly five glasses of wine. The agent never observed Bartender 4 accounting for these drinks in a comp or shift-drink ticket on the

POS.

 

At one point, another staff member (pictured) was sitting with them, and was drinking a soft drink, though it was impossible to tell if anything alcoholic had been mixed in.  At one point, a third employee approached them, saying “Alex, are you checked out yet,” to which one of the two employees responded “No.”     

At 11:27, Bartender 4 was seen drinking something a bit lighter than the color of cola from a plastic pint.  He kept the drink on the service well station.  Agent suspects an alcohol drink was being consumed; however, cannot substantiate this claim.

Similarly, there was an irregularity between bartenders and servers at the service well, as at 10:31 a server walked behind the bar, an unnecessary breakdown of the bar controls, and one that bartenders should be motivated to avoid, as any blame for a problem arising from a server behind the bar would ultimately be their fault.

                                            

Additionally, all bartenders’ appearance was always professional and hygienic, with the only exception being that they were never seen washing their hands.

Food and Beverage Summary

The agent and associate started off at the indoor bar with a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and a well gin and tonic. The former was served in a stemmed, fluted Pilsener glass, and the latter in a stemmed goblet with plenty of ice and lime, but no straw or drink stirrer.  The gin and tonic was made with the appropriate proportions, and was extremely refreshing and flavorful.  The pale ale also tasted just as expected, and was poured perfectly by Xxxxx.  IT was clearly fresh and well handled.

The agent’s party left the indoors and seated themselves at the bar farthest from the main entrance.   nearest the TouchTunes machine.  The agent was waited on by Server 1, who seemed to be the only server on duty.  There, they ordered a Harpoon India Pale Ale and a rum and Diet Coke. Both drinks came in translucent plastic pints, the beer with a perfect head, and the cocktail with ample ice.  IPA also tasted very fresh and flavorful, and showed no signs of age or oxidation.  It was excellent.

The cocktail was the rum and coke described in the “Bartenders” section above.  Aside from being stronger than expected, the drink tasted strongly of artificial vanilla flavor, which was why the agent asked about the well rum offering. That was when Bartender 4 “[solved] the problem” by pouring in nearly another full serving of Bacardi.

If they are giving away alcohol to strangers, and one who happens to be a bar theft integrity spotter, management can interpolate the problem from there.

All beverages were traditionally presented in intact glassware, at the proper temperatures and with all expected flavor characteristics.  What’s more, the agent was satisfied with both the breadth of the establishment’s selection, and especially with the value that it offered.

Because of the traffic the agent encountered on the way to the evaluation, by the time the outdoor bar nearest the main entrance was was approached, it was 11:30, and they were already closing.

 

Manager Summary

·       Bar Manager : Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair, average build, yellow short-sleeved collared shirt  and black slacks (pictured at right)

·       Patio Manager: Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair and goatee , average build, black short-sleeved collared shirt labeled “Xxxxx,”  and black slacks (pictured at left)

·       General Manager: Caucasian female, 5’9”, short graying brown hair, medium build, sky blue short-sleeved collared shirt and black slacks (pictured at right)

 


 

 

In general, the agent’s observations of the managers were brief and fleeting.  The first and only glimpse of the Bar manager was at 10:28.  At that time, the manager was standing beside the indoor bar, drinking a Long Trail Belgian White Ale (pictured at right).  Immediately after finishing it within two minutes, the Bar Manager stepped behind the bar, ringing something up in the POS.  This is a cause for concern, as it is a best practice not to have anyone who has been drinking behind the bar.  In a dram shop suit or identification compliance sting, this would not reflect well on the establishment.

The Patio Manager was seen several times outside, and was generally either talking to employees or just taking the scene in.  He was not present for the period in which Bartender 4 was pouring free house wine for an employee on the patio.

Finally, the General Manager was observed at 11:57 when she brought out a new cash drawer to Xxxxx, with whom she exchanged it for the older drawer.

The only major criticism of the managers was that they completely failed to address the two problems of obviously intoxicated guests being served and employees drinking at the establishment.  In fact, the Bar manager was himself drinking the only time the agent saw him.

There were no guest problems at any point that required manager intervention, but it is also worth mentioning that the agent never observed any of the managers communicating with any guests.

At 11:34, the agent returned to the indoor bar, ordering a Long Trail White Ale and a Diet Coke.  Both were served in fluted, stemmed Pilseners, and the soft drink came with ice.  Both beverages tasted pleasant and expected. Xxxxx declined to charge the agent for the soft drink

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free Drinks, storing stolen money in the POS, making drinks with dirty glassware

November 27, 2012 23:42 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary:

There were five bartenders on duty on this Friday evening evaluation – three at the Xxxxx bar adjacent to the restaurant and two at the Xxxxx bar that serves as a xxxx by day. There were three barbacks observed simultaneously – two at the Xxxxx bar and one at the Xxxxx bar.

Xxxxx Bar:

  • Bartender Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 5’10’’, short-cut light brown hair

  • Bartender Xxxxx: African American male, 6’3’’, glasses

  • Bartender Xxxxx: Caucasian female, 5’2’’, brown hair worn straight with bangs

  • Barback 1: Caucasian male, 5’10’’, brown hair worn combed smooth

  • Barback 2: Caucasian male, 5’11, brown hair worn spiky, glasses


Xxxxx Bar:

  • Bartender A: Caucasian male, 5’8’, light brown hair worn slightly wavy/curly

  • Bartender B: Caucasian male, 6’0’’, dark brown or black hair

  • Barback 3: Caucasian male, 5’8’’, light brown hair worn wavy/curly



Xxxxx Bar:

The agent and my associate approached the bar and were able to slide into a standing place at the bar. Since we were standing at the bar directly in front of the Xxxxx POS, we were in clear view of bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx. Although Xxxxx and Xxxxx were making conversation with nearby patrons, neither demonstrated urgency to look over to help us out and take our initial order.

After we were there for approximately 3 minutes without acknowledgement, Xxxxx asked what she could get for us; the agent asked for a drink menu, which was not placed on the bar for easy access of patrons. She gave us a clipboard with the small sheets of paper with the drink menu and went back to talking to the patrons at the end of the bar and did not follow up with us. The entire experience so far was very unwelcoming.

During this time, Xxxxx had moved from the end of the bar chatting with patrons to the Xxxxx POS, where he appeared to be trying to figure out something with another patron’s tab.  After approximately 4 minutes since we had received the menu and made decisions on drinks, Xxxxx looked up from the POS and asked what he could get for us.

We placed our drink order with Xxxxx, which he took while standing at the POS – still mulling over a tab. After we placed our order, Xxxxx continued to stand at the POS and did not move to make our drinks.

After another 2 minutes, Xxxxx then returned to us and asked what we would like. We again placed our drink order, which Xxxxx then moved to make. Xxxxx, who was still at the POS nearby, was very apologetic and thanked us two different times for being so patient.

One of the patrons at the end of the Xxxxx Bar, where both Xxxxx and Xxxxx were spending their time when the agent and my associate were patiently awaiting initial service, appeared to be over served. The patron, a woman in her late 40s and possibly Latina, had bloodshot eyes, appeared to be unsteady on her feet, and was seen loudly singing and dancing at the end of the bar. She appeared to be personally known to the bartenders, which could have resulted in her over intoxication. This is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management immediately.

Another one of the patrons at the end of the bar who were captivating the attention of both bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx on this very busy evening at the bar with countless patrons waiting for drinks, a White male in his mid to late 20s was seen specifically honing in on Xxxxx. As the very busy bar continued to get busier, Xxxxx exited from behind the bar and was seen standing on the lounge floor talking to this patron. Both behind and outside the bar, this patron took her focus away from the many other patrons who needed service.

This lack of urgency was observed throughout the time at the bar. The bartenders seemed oblivious or impervious to the fact that patrons were stacked up three deep waiting for drinks. Besides Xxxxx chatting with this patron outside the bar, the bartenders, bar backs and managers casually chatted with one another behind the bar, in addition to casually chatting to patrons who appeared to be regulars. There appeared to be no individualized attention given to other patrons at the bar.

Whereas the lack of urgency on the bartenders led to longer wait times for patrons needing drinks, the lack of urgency on the behalf of the bar backs led to a messy and unmaintained bar area and a shortage of clean glassware. During our time at the Xxxxx Bar, many empty glasses and bottles sat on the bar surface for the entire time that we were present – unbussed, uncleared, unclean.

Besides the empty glasses and bottles that remained on the bar for the extend of our time there, the more pressing issue from the barbacks’ lack of urgency was the lack of clean glassware. The lack of clean glassware led to a variety of problems and solutions, depending on the employee.

To create a solution for the problem, one server (Caucasian female, 5’6’’, light red hair) came behind the bar to clean burgundy glasses that were needed at her table; this was resourceful and necessary for her service, but it also led to unneeded informal chatting between this server and the bar backs and bartenders.

To exacerbate the problem with a much larger, more concerning issue, Bartender Xxxxx took the lack of clean glasses into his own hands. Xxxxx was seen to take a dirty glass that was at the service well (placed there by the service staff from the cocktail lounge area), rinse it out with water from the gun, and make a new drink directly into this dirty glass. The agent cannot even begin to describe the hygiene and health issues with this troubling observation. Needless to say, my associate and I did not order anything else made in glassware for the rest of the evaluation.

Other than the unfortunate incidence with the curt rinsing of a dirty and used glass, Xxxxx seemed to do an adequate job behind the bar. He primarily tended to the service well, making the drinks for the dinner and cocktail crowd being serviced by the waitresses around the establishment.

In addition to making all of the drinks for the service well at the Xxxxx Bar, Xxxxx also helped out bar patrons who were patiently and impatiently waiting for drinks from Bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx. Xxxxx helped out the agent and my associate on one occasion. He was professional, friendly, and had integrity with the recording and charging of the two drinks ordered.

Despite his apparent integrity for only making and delivering drinks that are bought and paid for, both at the service well with chit sheets and at the bar with patron tabs and cash payments, Bartender Xxxxx consistently pours a heavy drink. He was seen to pour on average an approximate five count (4 count =  1 1/2 oz) for all drinks at the service well. Some drinks were closer to a five and half or six count.

Pouring additional alcohol more than what management prescribes for increased gratuities and/or social standing is a form of bartender theft. Agent further suggests that management pour test all the bartenders to ensure uniform accuracy.

All of the bartenders at this Xxxxx Bar had some issues with integrity. Outside of Xxxxx’s heavy pour count, Xxxxx was seen not charging the full or appropriate amounts for drinks, whereas Xxxxx was seen to top off one drink with more than the fair share of alcohol, again without charging or recording on any spill/comp sheet.

Xxxxx made a drink in a champagne glass for a female patron that included brandy and a sugar cube. She served the drink and the patrons stated that there was no brandy in the drink. Xxxxx replied that there was indeed brandy (which there was a four count that the agent had observed her pour), but the patrons were insistent that they could not taste it.

Without argument, Xxxxx grabbed the bottle of brandy and poured a three count into the glass that sat on the bar in front of the patron. Xxxxx did not charge for this extra shot, or record the liquor on any spill/comp sheet.  

Other than this occasion of not charging for the additional top off, she did not appear to have other integrity issues.

Xxxxx, on the other hand, was observed engaging in some questionable behavior at the POS. At approximately 9:51 PM, Xxxxx was seen to ring out an attractive, young female patron who had just ordered a vodka and tonic. Her tab read just over $3.00, which the agent believes is not the accurate price for even well vodka at this establishment. The patron left $6.00 as a tip, which further interpolates to the agent that the bartender had charged less than the going price for her drink.

There were two other occasions that the agent was unsure about Xxxxx’s actions at the POS. On two occasions, both in which patrons paid cash, he did not appear to punch anything into the POS before he sought out change and returned it to the patron. It appeared, to both the agent and my associate, that Xxxxx put cash into the till without ringing in the drinks on these two occasions.

Agent strongly suspects that this bartender his hiding stolen money in the POS Drawer. If this is the case, the money is being laundered via transfer of money through say the tip jar (watch for an abacus system of tracking the stolen money i.e. straws, toothpicks, pennies/nickels/dimes, storing info on cell phone).  It also could be taken out at the end of the night if these bartenders are allowed to "Z" their own registers. In this case, Agent suggests management have them do blind bank drops to detect any overages and stolen money. In both scenarios, Agent suggests that management start performing mid-shift random POS drawer pulls to detect possible stolen money in the POS drawer.

There is a possibility that this happened on more than these two occasions, but the setup of the POS behind the bar does not allow for ample visibility to monitor for theft and integrity. While the agent appreciate that each individual employee must swipe his or her card to access the POS, thus providing record of individual transactions specific to each bartender, the position of the POS flat to the bar surface does not allow any visibility beyond that of the individual bartender recording the drinks. Moving the machines to the back ledge would provide a more public view of what is rung in, thus holding bartenders more accountable.

In addition to the problematic nature of the POS screens being difficult to view from any person other than the person who is ringing in the drink, the current system is also difficult to track for integrity due to the fact that bartenders apparently leave their tips in the till. There is no actual tip jar, and no tips were ever seen. While this deters bartenders from counting or displaying tips to the public, this confounds the lack of clarity of integrity when money enters the drawer without clear recording. Moreover, if they are comingling tips with $0 ring and cash deposits, management probably has a real theft issue on their hands.

The issues with the integrity related to the tabs are further exacerbated when the bartenders do not consistently provide the itemized tab statement. Xxxxx was the only bartender during our visit to give us an itemized tab; the other bartenders either provided only the credit card slip to sign (i.e., Xxxxx, Xxxxx) or took the cash and provided change with no documentation (i.e, Xxxxx, Bartender B). The itemized tab should consistently be provided to patrons.

Bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx appeared appropriately dressed, yet Xxxxx did not appear as pulled together. Although he originally appeared to fit in well with the other bartenders in their full black apparel, there was some sort of white shirt or boxers clearly showing under his uniform. To add to the unprofessional nature of his appearance, Xxxxx continued to attempt to use flair quite unsuccessfully.
                                              

Xxxxx Bar:

We visited the Xxxxx Bar in the second half of the evaluation, when the patronage at the establishment had picked up substantially. Whereas we had a good locale to observe the goings on at the Xxxxx Bar in the early portion of the visit, the Xxxxx Bar proved much more difficult. There were no seats at the bar, and patrons were squeezing and pushing their way up to the bar in order to get served drinks.

Unlike the Xxxxx Bar, the Xxxxx Bar appeared to have a better balance between bar duties. Bartender A took primary responsibility for the service well, whereas Bartender B helped the patrons at the busy, standing room only bar. Although there was still a very busy crowd and an extensive wait for drinks, the clear divide seemed helpful for bar and service staff.

Despite having all of the patrons waiting at the bar area, Bartender B had no urgency or enthusiasm. The agent and my associate slowly inched our way up through the hefty crowd to the bar. Without counting in the time that it took to move up to the actual bar itself, we continued to wait for more than 10 minutes for the bartender to offer us drinks.

When my associate finally was able to get his attention, although we were standing directly at the small bar, he barely changed his affect when we posed questions about drinks available at this bar. When we tried to order a round similar to what we had just ordered at the Xxxxx Bar, Bartender B retorted that they didn’t have draft beer, as if we should have known the distinctions in offerings between bars.

As my associate turned to ask me what I wanted instead, Bartender B was gone. This was highly irritating, and if not on duty I would have left.

It took another 4 minutes to get his attention again, and my associate placed our drink order. He sought out the drinks, moved to the POS to enter the drinks, and gave the appropriate amount of cash in return to the agent.

At this point, the agent overhead a disgruntled couple who was waiting for a pen to sign their credit card tab; the pen never came from Bartender B.

In addition to Bartender B behind the Xxxxx Bar, Bartender A poured a consistently heavy pour count at an approximate six count. There were times that he was observed pouring closer to a seven count of alcohol in drinks. This is far to much alcohol and is a dram shop issue. Nevertheless, besides the heavy pour count, he seemed to consistently accompany a drink order at the service well with a chit sheet that came through the POS system.

Although Bartender A appeared to be doing a decent job of keeping up with the service requests for drinks in the well, there was one occasion when a server did not have the patience to wait for her drinks. On this occasion, one server (Caucasian female, 5’6’’, shoulder length, straight blonde hair) came behind bar to get her own drink near service well; she appeared to pour two glasses of champagne from a bottle that was already open at the service well. Agent cannot substantiate if these were properly accounted for and therefore scores it as a theft/integrity occurrence.

Unlike the two bar backs observed in the Xxxxx Bar who moved without urgency and rush, Bar back 3 appeared to be quite attentive and helpful. He moved around quickly behind the bar and appeared to serve the bartenders quite well.

Across both of the bars, there were quite a few negative trends. The bars were overcrowded and the bartenders appeared to have no real urgency to quickly attend to the patrons in need of drinks. Bartenders appeared to be friendly and chatty to one another, yet appeared to be incredibly unhelpful and unfriendly to patrons. Many patrons, at both the Xxxxx and Xxxxx Bars, were heard to complain extensively about the wait times and poor service of the bartenders.

Agent observed first hand one group of patrons actually left without getting initial service from the Xxxxx Bar. One patron was overheard saying, "I can't wait to Yelp! about this."

Additionally, throughout the entire evaluation, there was no observation of any food sales or even offering of menus. The agent understands that bartenders need to focus on alcohol and drink sales in the bar and cocktail areas at this later time of evening on a Saturday night; however, if the establishment values this extra push for additional revenue, perhaps appetizer menus or something could be regularly placed around the bar, rather than have bartenders have another thing on their plate to serve on an already overloaded plate to serve. Liquor liability experts also suggest that food be pushed in high volume alcohol serving areas to help possibly slow down rates of intoxication.

Most importantly, there was no carding across all bartenders of a very young crowd on this Saturday evening. Without door men or a security team ensuring that only patrons of age enter the establishment, bartenders must take the initiative to card patrons who might be underage. There were a large amount of patrons who did not only appear around 21, but appeared under 21. Carding was not observed at all. This is a major dram shop liquor liability issue that needs to be rectified, considering the younger crowd that grew as the night went on.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Not ringing drinks in right away, over-pouring.

May 9, 2012 16:29 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

·       Bartender 1:  Caucasian female, 5’6”, with an average build. She had blonde/brown wavy hair worn in a pony tail. She wore a black XXXX top with black pants.

·       Bartender 2: Caucasian male, 6’, with a stocky build. He had brown hair with a slight beard. He wore a red XXXX polo shirt and jeans.

·       Bartender 3: Caucasian female, 5’5”, with an average build. She had long black hair work half pulled into a pony tail. She wore a white blouse and black pants.

·       Bartender 4: Caucasian female, 5'5”, with an average build. She had long brown hair worn straight and in a pony tail. She wore a white blouse and black pants.


As the agent approached the xxxxx bar he found seating available at a very busy bar. Bartenders 1 and 2 were serving a nearly full bar, as well as people standing at nearby bar tables. The two bartenders seemed to work efficiently and well together.

Neither bartender offered their name to the agent.

A few seconds after being seating Bartender 2 greeted the agent and offered a beverage. The agent ordered a cocktail, and Bartender 2 failed to ask for a liquor preference. He did check the agent's identification. I am frequently asked for ID.

Bartender 2 quickly prepared the drink with quite the heavy pour, one bordering on a 6 count. As the agent watched Bartender 2 through the evening he appeared to have a heavy hand on most pours.

As he provided the agent the beverage he also offered a menu; he would return about ten minutes later to see if any food would be ordered. No credit card was collected from the agent to start a tab. After watching, the agent deemed that both bartenders were picking and choosing who they required a credit card of to start a tab.

It seemed that each bartender had that own side of the bar which they were responsible for serving. They would regularly crossover into each other's sides when necessary however. Bartender 1 was predominantly seen working at the far end of the bar, while Bartender 2 was serving guests at the end closest to the front entrance.

In addition to serving guests Bartender 2 was also responsible for pouring server's drinks. The agent noticed a couple disturbing trends as far as server tickets went.

The first being that Bartenders 1 and 2 seemed to lack any awareness and urgency to make server tickets. Many tickets sat for a great deal of time before either being poured or before a server shouted across the bar to get a bartenders attention.

Secondly, with server drinks as well as bar guests drinks, Bartender 2 had an unsanitary habit of handling drinks by the rim of the glass. And lastly, it seemed that the standard was to place the physical ticket in the drink itself.

Cleanliness as a whole was also an issue at the first floor bar. While Bartender 2 did wipe down the section of the bar where the agent sat down, the remainder of the bar top stayed filled with empty glassware, trash and soiled dishware. These cleanliness issues duplicated themselves at the high top tables in the bar area. A barback/busser was on duty however he was not seen doing much to maintain cleanliness standards either.

The agent observed Bartender 1 mostly from afar due to the large crowd filling her end of the bar. During his time at the bar, the agent did observe a couple of possible integrity/theft issues.

The first occurring at 9:30pm when Bartender 1 poured a full 9 count cocktail for a guest at the far end of the bar then failed to ring anything in.

Also, at 9:45pm both bartenders worked to prepare several shots for some regulars sitting at the bar. These shots also appeared to go unaccounted for.

More disturbing than these two occasions was the minuscule amount of time both bartenders visited the POS to ring things in. For the amount of drinks leaving the bar, neither bartender visited the POS nearly enough. Bartenders 1 and 2 may have accounted for the two integrity issues listed above, however it would be difficult to figure that since the general practice was not to ring drinks in immediately after serving them. It's very hard to assess theft issues if the bartenders are rarely ringing in the drinks directly after they make them.

Agent highly suggests management instruct the bartenders on a make a drink - ring a drink policy and strictly enforce it. The system in place of delayed rings and group/batch ordering is a sieve for bartender theft opportunity.

Both Bartenders 1 and 2 were very friendly and helpful with the agent. Bartender 2 was present to offer additional beverages when appropriate and had a friendly farewell for the agent as he departed.

Moving to the Xxxxx bar, the agent was abruptly met by Bartender 3. Before offering any sort of friendly greeting, she quickly asked if the agent was just upstairs to smoke or to drink. Her approach was a bit abrasive and did not create an environment in which the agent would wish to stay. Nevertheless, the agent ordered a beverage for which Bartender 3 started a tab. She asked the agent's name to start a tab but did not offer hers in return.

Bartender 3 had maybe one or two empty seats at her bar and a mostly empty dining room with exception of one table. Rather than taking the opportunity to chat with her guests, the agent observed Bartender 3 being mostly stand-offish.

Shortly thereafter two more guests came upstairs and attempted to order drinks. The guest inquired how tabs worked at the separate bars, asking if they were connected or if he would need to close each one separately. Bartender 3 once again responded in poor manners with a short, rude, curt response that simply wasn't necessary.

With not much happening at the second floor bar, the agent closed his tab and moved to the third floor bar. He quickly found a spot at the bar. It was quite some time before Bartender 4 greeted the agent which was only after he asked for a menu.

The agent believes this delay in service to be due to the fact that he still had a beverage in his hand from the downstairs bar. The agent observed this pattern recur at the 2nd and 3rd floor bar throughout the night. While a guest may not need a drink at the moment, good service standards dictate that employees greet all guests or perhaps offer a menu.

After the initial point of contact, Bartender 4 was helpful, friendly and attentive. The agent observed Bartender 4's pour count which were accurate. She had quite a few guests at the bar to serve and was quick to account for all drinks.

Bartender 4 asked for a credit card to start a tab. She returned at appropriate times to offer additional drinks and to inquire if the agent needed a menu. She did not offer her name to the agent.

Food and beverage service from Bartender 4 was quick and well-timed. During her spare time the bartender kept busy by organizing the bar, rearranging bottles, and insuring that the bar top was clean.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT - Overpouring Drinks for Larger Tips

April 27, 2012 23:13 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary -                    

·        Bartender – “Xxxxx” (as shown on nametag and bar receipt) female Caucasian, blond with hair up in a high pony tail, xxx feet tall, slender, approximately XX years old.                                   

Agent and associate were promptly greeted by the bartender with “hi guys, what can I get you to drink?” She was wiping down the bar refilling cups of peanuts and placed cocktail napkins in front of each of us. She was smiling energetic and upbeat.

Agent and associate ordered drinks and she immediately mixed the drinks and returned. Agent noticed that the drink was made by turning the bottle over twice and a little more. Bouncing these bottles circumvents the purpose in which they were made which delivers more alcohol than what is prescribed and therefore may constitute a bar theft occurrence. 

Xxxxx did not introduce herself to us by name but she was very friendly and outgoing. Xxxxx was not only responsible for the guests at the bar but also making the drinks for the cocktail staff and server staff in the dining room.

Agent was not able to tell exactly when Xxxxx rang up the drinks as we were not given a receipt at any time during the visit. Agent noticed that none of the guests at the bar had a receipt in front of them.

Agent recommends using the make a drink ring a drink policy and placing the receipt in front of the guest in a small glass. This will ensure that all drinks are accounted for. Especially in the event when there are other employees behind the bar.

Agent and associate ordered another round of drinks and each time the drinks were placed on white cocktail napkins but not immediately rang up.

Agent and associate later ordered dinner and Xxxxx immediately turned and went to the POS and rang in the order. Prior to the food arriving (20 min. later) Xxxxx placed napkins and silverware and salt and pepper shakers on the bar.

Xxxxx seemed to work well with the other staff and was very personable with all the guests at the bar especially the men.

Listed below are some general observations agent made during the visit;

Xxxxx use the ice scoop to make every drink except for glasses of water which were in plastic cups, she scooped the cup directly into the ice.

Xxxxx was very attentive in offering additional drinks for everyone at the bar and refilling waters. (See food and beverage section)

Agent was able to observe every drink poured. Xxxxx tips the bottle a minimum of two times for each drink sometimes up to four and even five times.

Xxxxx left the bar unattended many times and agent observed the cocktail server ( female Caucasian blonde hair in bun) coming behind the bar each time Xxxxx left as well as a couple servers from the dining room coming behind the bar to retrieve beverage orders. Agent felt that this was rather lax and a real loop hole for possible bar theft integrity issues.

In agents opinion no one but the bartender on duty should ever be behind the bar unless it was a manager. If the bartender needs to leave the bar the staff should know that they are not allowed back there for any reason whatsoever. If the bartender needs something from the kitchen the bartender should have one of the other service staff retrieve the item for them. If the bartender needs to leave the bar unattended they should call the MOD to cover.

Xxxxx was away from the bar at about 6:44 about 5 minutes and returned with a plastic bag of a purchase from the gift shop and a small clear plastic container with fruit. She proceeded to eat the fruit during the visit, turning around away from the guests facing the POS while eating.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint..
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT - ADLLC Violations

April 26, 2012 06:09 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary                                                                          

  • Bartender:  Caucasian female with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wearing a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Agent took a seat at the bar and was greeted within seconds.  The bartender approached with a smile and a cardboard coaster in hand and asked what I would like to drink.  Agent stalled in an attempt to get an offer on the specials if any, but to no avail.  Agent did hear the bartender knowledgably list the numerous specials later in the evaluation after being asked. 

For best customer service, agent feels that bartenders should automatically offer specials particularly when the guest is unsure of what they would like.  At no time did the bartender ask agent if it was their 1st time at the establishment, nor was she overheard asking anyone else.

Agent noted that the bartender had her beer key shoved in the side of her bikini bottom directly against her skin which is an AZ Health Code violation.  Agent suggests strategically placing bottle openers behind the bar if they aren’t already.

When agent’s drink was about 90% empty the bartender approached and offered something new.  Throughout the evaluation the bartender was good about offering new drinks before the guest was completely empty which is an excellent practice.  Hospitality Checkpoint suggests following the 75% rule which is to always offer a new beverage to guests when it is 75% empty because it helps prevent guests sitting with empty drinks if the establishment is very busy or the staff has a distraction.

During the evaluation agent observed the bartender eating at the north end of the bar standing behind it.  There was a guest eating the food, which appeared to be from Streets of New York, with her as well. 

The bartender was observed standing behind the bar doing what appeared to be texting and also holding her phone while speaking with a bar guest.  On one occasion the bartender and a different bar guest were doing what appeared to be comparing ring tones for about 15-20 minutes.  All the while, she was not observed looking around to check the status of other guests. 

Throughout the evaluation the bartender poured a minimum of a 4 count = 1.5 ounces to a 6 count = 2 ounce.  On one occasion the bartender was pouring a second round of caramel colored liquor on the rocks in 4ounce rocks glasses.  The bottle of liquor was nearly empty, but instead of saving the last shot for the next order and having a backup bottle ready, the bartender divided the remainder up between the 2 drinks that were already a 5 count pour. delivering more alcohol than what is prescribed by management is a form of bartender theft.

Each time the bartender served a guest who was paying cash, she would move immediately to the register with one exception.  The exception was an occasion when she prepared drinks for 2 different groups of guests and took payment for one of the groups, became distracted for about 3 minutes and then took the payment for the other drinks; however, there were guests at the bar who had a credit card tab running and on several occasions the bartender did not move to her pad of paper to account for the items served for between 3 and 15 minutes.  Agent has no way to know if each of the items were accounted for. because this was not observed being rung in correctly, agent scores this a possible bartender theft occurrence.

The bartender did wiggle her rear end while pouring draft beer, but was also observed waiting for a guest to finish drinking their beer so she could use the same glass which agent found quite lazy of her.  The guest was clearly annoyed by being pressured to finish the beer in the glass.

Throughout the evaluation the bartender was very lackadaisical about keeping the bar top clean.  Agent observed a guest leave and his glass stayed on the bar for over 2 hours after he was gone.  Three bar guests did a shot and the glasses were still on the bar when agent left an hour later.  Guests at a high top table did a round of shots and then ordered new shots.  When she delivered them, she did not clear the initial empty shot glasses.  In general, the only thing that the bartender would clear was empty beer bottles, but even they would be left for varying amounts of time.

The bartender was not playing pool or darts, but did play Wii bowling with a bar guest on the large television mounted on the south wall of the outside of the ladies room.

During the evaluation agent observed the bartender pour a blue liquid from a storm pourer into a 4 ounce rocks glass about 2/3 full.  She then used a straw to drink the entire contents of the glass.  She took the bottle to a group of guests along with 3 shot glasses and after some exchange, poured the same liquid in the 1 ounce shot glasses.  At this time agent became certain, but cannot substantiate, that the liquid was an alcoholic beverage.  The bartender drinking the shot while on duty, particularly the quantity that she did, was a severe ADLLC violation and can subject licensee holder to hefty fines.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint..
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012

 


BARTENDER THEFT - Bartender not ringing drinks, ADLLC Violations, employee alcohol consumption, free drinks,

April 22, 2012 01:38 by administrator

Bartender Summary                                                                          

  • Bartender:  Caucasian female with very short auburn hair wearing a colorful bikini with black legwarmers and black platform shoes.

Agent took a seat at the bar and was greeted within seconds.  The bartender approached with a smile and a cardboard coaster in hand and asked what I would like to drink.  Agent stalled in an attempt to get an offer on the specials if any, but to no avail.  Agent did hear the bartender knowledgably list the numerous specials later in the evaluation after being asked. 

For best customer service, agent feels that bartenders should automatically offer specials particularly when the guest is unsure of what they would like.  At no time did the bartender ask agent if it was their 1st time at the establishment, nor was she overheard asking anyone else.

Agent noted that the bartender had her beer key shoved in the side of her bikini bottom directly against her skin which is an AZ Health Code violation.  Agent suggests strategically placing bottle openers behind the bar if they aren’t already.

When agent’s drink was about 90% empty the bartender approached and offered something new.  Throughout the evaluation the bartender was good about offering new drinks before the guest was completely empty which is an excellent practice.  Hospitality Checkpoint suggests following the 75% rule which is to always offer a new beverage to guests when it is 75% empty because it helps prevent guests sitting with empty drinks if the establishment is very busy or the staff has a distraction.

During the evaluation agent observed the bartender eating at the north end of the bar standing behind it.  There was a guest eating the food, which appeared to be from Streets of New York, with her as well. 

The bartender was observed standing behind the bar doing what appeared to be texting and also holding her phone while speaking with a bar guest.  On one occasion the bartender and a different bar guest were doing what appeared to be comparing ring tones for about 15-20 minutes.  All the while, she was not observed looking around to check the status of other guests. 

Throughout the evaluation the bartender poured a minimum of a 4 count = 1.5 ounces to a 6 count = 2 ounce.  On one occasion the bartender was pouring a second round of caramel colored liquor on the rocks in 4ounce rocks glasses.  The bottle of liquor was nearly empty, but instead of saving the last shot for the next order and having a backup bottle ready, the bartender divided the remainder up between the 2 drinks that were already a 5 count pour. delivering more alcohol than what is prescribed by management is a form of bartender theft.

Each time the bartender served a guest who was paying cash, she would move immediately to the register with one exception.  The exception was an occasion when she prepared drinks for 2 different groups of guests and took payment for one of the groups, became distracted for about 3 minutes and then took the payment for the other drinks; however, there were guests at the bar who had a credit card tab running and on several occasions the bartender did not move to her pad of paper to account for the items served for between 3 and 15 minutes.  Agent has no way to know if each of the items were accounted for. because this was not observed being rung in correctly, agent scores this a possible bartender theft occurrence.

The bartenderxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx while pouring draft beer, but was also observed waiting for a guest to finish drinking their beer so she could use the same glass which agent found quite lazy of her.  The guest was clearly annoyed by being pressured to finish the beer in the glass.

Throughout the evaluation the bartender was very lackadaisical about keeping the bar top clean.  Agent observed a guest leave and his glass stayed on the bar for over 2 hours after he was gone.  Three bar guests did a shot and the glasses were still on the bar when agent left an hour later.  Guests at a high top table did a round of shots and then ordered new shots.  When she delivered them, she did not clear the initial empty shot glasses.  In general, the only thing that the bartender would clear was empty beer bottles, but even they would be left for varying amounts of time.

The bartender was not playing pool or darts, but did play Wii bowling with a bar guest on the large television mounted on the south wall of the outside of the ladies room.

During the evaluation agent observed the bartender pour a blue liquid from a storm pourer into a 4 ounce rocks glass about 2/3 full.  She then used a straw to drink the entire contents of the glass.  She took the bottle to a group of guests along with 3 shot glasses and after some exchange, poured the same liquid in the 1 ounce shot glasses.  At this time agent became certain, but cannot substantiate, that the liquid was an alcoholic beverage.  The bartender drinking the shot while on duty, particularly the quantity that she did, was a an ADLLC violation and can subject licensee holder to hefty fines.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint..
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012

 


Insider Theft Can Have a Major Effect on Bar Profits

September 29, 2011 19:10 by administrator
are  
By Elizabeth Godsmark
Atlantic Publishing
 

This is an alarming fact: most types of beverage operations lose a crippling percentage of profits through insider theft. The vast majority of employees in the beverage industry are honest and hardworking; it is the small minority of staff that can ruin your business through dishonesty. Insider theft can often escalate if there are weaknesses in the following general areas of the operation:

  • Lack of supervision. Theft from behind the bar, storeroom or storage areas is a major problem. Curb losses by increasing supervision, either in person or by means of strategically positioned security cameras.
  • Proprietor attitude. Don't make matters worse by treating all employees with suspicion. Get the honest staff on your side.
  • Weak management. Unfortunately, some beverage managers compound the issue of insider theft by turning a "blind eye" and simply increasing prices to cover "shrinkage." Owners need to question unwarranted price rises.
  • Pouring costs A common danger area. These costs need to be carefully monitored, especially in relation to bartender productivity.
  • Inventory records. This is one of the easiest areas for dishonest employees to "fiddle the books." Tighten up your record keeping. Never leave inventory control to one person. Double-check.
  • End-of-shift cash count. Another prime target area for insider theft. Never let a bartender reconcile the cash in the register at the end of his or her shift.

 

Bartender Theft: Top Ten Ploys

Controlling theft behind the majority of bars is no mean task; eliminating it altogether is virtually impossible. Temptation is a fine thing, and unfortunate­ly, the opportunity for bartender theft is overwhelming. However, in the interests of long-term survival, you have no choice but to tackle the problem head on. Be wary of the following top-ten common ploys:

  • Open theft. A bartender pours a drink, doesn't ring the cash register and puts the cash in a "holding" place, such as the tip jar.
  • Overcharging. Bartender pockets the difference. A variation is to charge regular prices but ring up "Happy Hour" prices and, again, pocket the difference.
  • Ringing "00" on the cash register. The bartender simply steals the value of the drink.
  • Overpouring. Bartender hopes to get a heavy tip.
  • Underpouring. Bartender keeps a mental note of the number of half measures poured throughout the evening and then thieves the equivalent value in drinks, gives them away or drinks them him-or herself.
  • Rounds of drinks. Bartender rings up for a "round" rather than separate items. It makes it easier to inflate the overall price of a round of drinks, particularly if guests are unfamiliar with individual prices.
  • Shortchanging. Common variations include: counting aloud while handing the customer less money, distracting the customer by sliding the change along the bar, and giving change for lower -denomination bills (while keeping the difference).
  • "Soft" inventory. Bartender neglects to charge for the mixer component of a drink.
  • Substitution - bringing in own liquor. This is often done with vodka because it is odorless and looks like water. Dilution is another similar ploy.
  • Padding the tab. The bartender pencils in an inflated total and later erases it, replacing it with the correct total. Warning! Ban pencils from behind the bar.

 

Less Common (But Equally Damaging) Employee Theft

The more experienced the dishonest employee, the better equipped he or she is to manipulate the system. Thieving members of staff are quick to detect exactly how much an owner really understands about the business. In the beverage industry, take nothing for granted. Alert yourself to the following, somewhat extreme, possibilities.

  • Reusing closed tabs. The bartender appears to ring up the drink price but, in actual fact, only halfway enters the tab into the register. He or she then hits "0" to give the impression of ringing it in.
  • Over-ringing. When the customer isn't looking, the thief over-rings an amount on the tab and then re-rings the tab for less than the amount charged.
  • "Paid outs." The bartender claims that the money was refunded for various reasons, such as faulty cigarette machines.
  • Jigger substitution. The bartender brings in his own shot glass that looks identical to the official jigger but is actually smaller. Several short measures over a shift add up
  • Changing shifts. It is easy for the thief to make, serve and collect several drinks during a busy "hand-over" period.
  • Deliberate mistakes. Drinks are then returned and resold or given to a friend.
  • Breaking empty bottles and pretending they were full. Full bottles are then requisitioned to replace the "broken" empty bottles.

Substituting water in the drip tray. The bartender pretends he or she had to waste a pint to clear the lines and then pockets the difference.

 

This article is an excerpt from the Food Service Professional Guide to Controlling Liquor Wine & Beverage Costs, authored by Elizabeth Godsmark, published by Atlantic Publishing Company. This excerpt has been reprinted with permission of the publisher. To purchase this book go to:

Atlantic Publishing Company
Amazon.com

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2011


Bartender Theft, Atrocious Service, Cooks Stealing Out the Back Door

November 10, 2009 22:31 by administrator

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender:  Female, 5’5”, Caucasian, in her forties, with a medium build and short, reddish-blond hair.  She wore black shorts, a blue polo or tee shirt, and a ball cap.  She introduced herself as Xxxxxx.

The agent approached the bar.  Xxxxxx approached him quickly, placing a cocktail napkin on the bar top and looking at him in a less-than-friendly manner.  Her manner of asking him whether he cared for a beverage was: “Yea?” in a brusque tone. If Agent wasn’t on duty I most likely would have chosen to leave and spend my money elsewhere.

Xxxxxx filled the round and asked in single-word prompts for the agent’s preferences for applicable modifications. 

She did not suggest upsell options or sizes. 

She did not ask for identification; the agent is thirty years of age.

Xxxxxx delivered the round promptly and immediately walked away.  She returned shortly and asked, “You wanna keep a tab?”  She did not require a credit card to secure the tab.

Xxxxxx next approached the agent several minutes later, asking, “You want chips?”  Her sour expression and rough tone continued. It was very disconcerting. Agent was puzzled why she would treat the people who are literally paying her with such rudeness. Again, based solely on her curt behavior, the Agent would never return to this establishment.

Several minutes later, Xxxxxx approached again and remarkably offered the agent a menu.  Her tone warmed considerably at this exchange, and she introduced and offered herself if the agent needed anything.

Xxxxxx returned after approximately ten minutes to ask if the agent cared to order anything.  She offered applicable modifications, but no upsell options.  She repeated the order back to the agent, and returned to verify the order twice before placing it.

The appetizer arrived in appropriate time, and Xxxxxx checked on the agent after several minutes.  She yelled across the bar to verify the agent’s entrée order, and thereafter rang it in.

The entrée arrived approximately twelve minutes after the appetizer.  Xxxxxx passed by the agent several times but did not ask him if everything was to his liking, or whether he needed anything else.  Shockingly, the agent had neither silverware nor napkins, and therefore was unable to eat the meal.  Only after the employee later described as Busser cleared the agent’s appetizer plates did the agent receive silverware; Busser provided a knife, fork, and napkin atop a side plate.

Xxxxxx juggled the bar and table business with the server orders well.  She offered additional rounds at the appropriate times, but immediately rang in items only, approximately, half of the time.  She did not keep printed tabs in front of any guest, and dangerously grouped transactions; therefore, the agent could not substantiate how many items Xxxxxx ultimately recorded or much more importantly didn’t record.

The agent’s tab omitted one non-alcoholic beverage; please refer to the Food and Beverage Summary for details.

This bar system sorely needs to be modified as it is a sieve for bar theft opportunity. Please contact the Hospitality Checkpoint office for suggestions in modifying the bartender’s process development. Because of the system in place it is next to impossible to fully substantiate the theft that may be occurring. Again, it cannot be substantiated; however, Agent extrapolates that a theft problem is present and probably very large. Bottom line is you simply can’t tell if the bartender doesn’t ring things in right after they are made.

Xxxxxx drank from a plastic soda cup kept behind the bar.  She also was seen putting food in her mouth and chewing; however, the agent could not discern what she was eating.  She did not wash her hands in between eating, and handled fruit with her bare hands. All of these are Arizona Health Code violations.

Xxxxxx had a cavalier attitude with respect to server tickets and protocols.  When behind the bar, she filled the orders; however, she was frequently away from the bar, during which times servers freely went behind the bar and prepared drinks.  Agent was flabbergasted by this protocol. Agent was very surprised that management has very lax controls on the product. These controls are “basic” restaurant management and they simply are not being implemented here. Agent highly suggests modifying these procedures and implementing new theft prevention controls.

The servers did not pull their tickets, and when Xxxxxx returned, she asked the servers if they still needed items.  It would have been very easy for a server to give away free drinks by simply making an order for themselves in Xxxxxx’s absence, then waiting for Xxxxxx to fill the ticket, as well.

The servers also delivered verbal orders on several occasions, and Xxxxxx filled the verbal requests without question.  Once such example occurred At 7:30 pm, when the female employee pictured at right received a Negra Modelo from a verbal order; no ticket was produced for the beer.

Xxxxxx did not handle cash from the tip jar, and did not pull her charge tips when closing out credit card checks. 

Xxxxxx appeared to have a good rapport with guests, and encouraged guests to return, advising them of what nights she worked when they departed. 

Xxxxxx failed to adhere to state laws that govern the service of alcohol.  Of the ten patrons in the bar when the agent entered, two were visibly intoxicated.  Xxxxxx remarkably continued to serve both of them throughout the visit subjecting the restaurant to ADLLC violation fines, as well, both her and the restaurant to possible negligence charges if an accident should occur.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

14. For a licensee or other person to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person, or for a licensee or employee of the licensee to allow or permit a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person to come into or remain on or about the premises, except that a licensee or an employee of the licensee may allow an obviously intoxicated person to remain on the premises for a period of time of not to exceed thirty minutes after the state of obvious intoxication is known or should be known to the licensee in order that a nonintoxicated person may transport the obviously intoxicated person from the premises. For purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to the extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.

Xxxxxx delivered the check to the agent with no check presenter and without the agent requesting it making us feel pressured to leave. 

She did not offer dessert, coffee, any additional drinks, or ask whether the agent was finished. 

She provided a carryout container to the agent when he requested; she followed several minutes later and removed all his plates.

Xxxxxx collected payment, which she processed without asking for identification, as instructed on the back of the agent’s credit card.  <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->By law because she failed to do this, Agent could notify bank and cancel the transaction. Just make management aware.

She returned two credit card slips with the agent’s card; she did not return the itemized receipt, which omitted one beverage item and one food item.  Please refer to the Food and Beverage Summary for details.

Xxxxxx thanked the agent in a friendly manner when she collected the payment.  She invited him to return.  She thanked him again and wished him a good night when he departed.

Xxxxxx’s appearance and initial attitude left much to be desired.  Her knit shorts were very short and barely extended underneath her untucked shirt.  She also wore flip-flops, which were both a safety concern and a violation of Arizona Food Handler regulations.  She reminded the agent of someone extracted from their couch, against their will, on a lazy Saturday afternoon—her appearance and attire were unprofessional, potentially-hazardous, and inappropriate for an environment in which food and beverages are served.

Additionally, Xxxxxx’s demeanor and manner of service in the beginning of the visit were extremely rude and inappropriate.  The agent could not believe how unfriendly she was. 

As the visit progressed, Xxxxxx became friendlier, but her initial interaction was completely unacceptable for the service industry.  The agent could tell Xxxxxx’s demeanor is typically “rough” or “no nonsense,” to which some guests, particularly in a bar setting, will respond.  However, in order to keep , as ell as, build new business and appeal to a wider demographic, a median level of courtesy and effort should be standard.  Had the agent been a normal guest, he would have likely left after one quick drink and would have never patronized the establishment ever again.

Lastly, the Agent hypothesizes that ownership is losing an alarming and possibly an enormous amount of profits via loopholes in the system that openly allow theft opportunities. Agent would highly recommend contacting the Hospitality Checkpoint office for further assistance in this matter.

Management Summary

The agent observed no member of management during the visit.

Addendum A

The first impression the agent received in the first three minutes of the visit was enough to make him want to leave; had he been in the establishment for leisure, he would have left.

The hostess ignored him while he was, awkwardly, trying to find out if there was a bar, and where it was located.

When he got to the bar, Xxxxxx was extremely brusque to the point of rudeness in her first few interactions with the agent.

The older, casual, mom-and-pop atmosphere of the establishment is quaint, and the facility is well-maintained, despite its age.  However, the appearance of most of the employees discouraged the agent from wanting to eat food prepared and served by their messy and unprofessional hands.  Ill-fitting uniforms, un-restricted hair, and a general lack of concern for appearance detracted greatly from the professionalism of the staff, and showed a level of disregard that the agent feared extended into more personally-consequential areas.

Although, the comments are a rather harsh, Agent hopes that management does not take these statements personally, but rather as a stepping stone to modify the controls in the restaurant. It’s as if there is no one actually running this restaurant and if there is, they are totally inefficient at doing so. Again, please take the criticism constructively. 

Addendum B

When the agent exited the facility, he observed the rear door of the building propped open.  The open access posed a security concern.

At 8:15pm, shortly after the agent went to his car, he observed a maroon mid-sized SUV pull into the lot and park directly behind the open rear door.  The vehicle was an Explorer-style SUV.  A female, approximately 5’6”, Caucasian, with an average build, light-brown or blond hair, wearing black pants and a red blouse, emerged from the vehicle and went inside.

Shortly thereafter, the agent observed two males exit the door: one was approximately 5’5”, with an average build, wearing a white tee shirt, and carrying a cellular phone; the second male was 5’3”, with an average build and shaggy dark hair, and wore a green shirt.

The two males slowly rolled a trash can to the front of the dumpster, and then walked behind the dumpster and out-of-sight.  Eight minutes later, they emerged from behind the dumpster, emptied the trash can, and returned through the rear door.  The agent could not substantiate their actions while behind the dumpster but suspects that they were smuggling items out of the restaurant via the trash and recovering them at a later time.

At 8:41 pm, the woman exited the rear door carrying a large package, which she placed in the back seat of the SUV.  She reentered the building.  At 8:51 pm, she emerged again and departed. Again, Agent cannot substantiate theft but highly suspects it was happening.

The agent also observed a male, 5’8”, with short, dark hair and wearing a black tee shirt, exit and reenter the establishment several times through the rear door.  The employee appeared to be hosing down mats and a fenced-in area immediately outside the door.

The agent strongly discourages allowing employees to enter and exit through the rear door.  The clandestine access is both a security concern and a portal for theft.

Additionally, the agent suggests employees who require access to the rear of the building—such as those who would empty the trash or hose down kitchen mats—be accompanied by a manager both for their own security and that of the establishment, as well as to ensure that only appropriate actions are taking place on company grounds.

While observing the actions of the aforementioned employees, the agent also observed a small pick-up truck enter the lot, park, and its inhabitants go inside, presumably to eat.  They returned within four minutes and left, speaking in tones that suggested they were unhappy.  The agent could not substantiate why they were turned away; however, as he observed many employees departing around that time, he suspected the patrons were informed the kitchen was closed.  They entered prior to 8:40 pm.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811