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: Not ringing in drinks, Liquor Law Violations, auto up-selling

November 28, 2012 20:11 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

·       Bar 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’4 with short black hair and pink highlights and multiple facial piercings wearing a blue zip up sweater and jeans.

·       Bar 2:  Caucasian male approximately 6’ with short spiked brown hair and multiple tattoos on his arms wearing a cross necklace.

The agent and associate approached the bar top and were greeted with a slight delay by Bar 1.  She was surprisingly staring rather blankly off into space and didn’t seem to notice new guests had approached her bar top (see food and beverage summary for details).  She came over and asked “you didn’t need anything to drink did you?”  The agent was perplexed by her non-upselling greet as it was not inviting or good service in the agent’s opinion.

A drink order was placed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She brought the drinks in a timely manner and placed them on top of coasters.  She reported to the POS to start our tab.

She did not introduce herself by name in case we needed anything further.

Later in the evaluation Bar 2 came onto shift.  He greeted us with a smile and asked if we were doing ok which is good service in the agent’s opinion.  He was only observed for a short time but appeared to be friendly and attentive in the agent’s opinion.

The agent presented payment for Bar 1 to process as it appeared she was getting ready to come off her shift.  Payment was processed quickly.  She did not return it in a check presenter and an itemized receipt was not included.  She thanked us while walking away which impersonal and in genuine in the agent’s opinion.

Overall the agent was not impressed with Bar 1’s service.  She moved around the bar without any sense of urgency which made her appear to be bored, tired and unenthused to be at work which is unpleasant in the agent’s opinion.  She was not observed conversing personally with any guests and only spoke when an order was being exchanged which is impersonal and not a quality that a bartender should posses in the agent’s opinion.

She was only observed pouring one mixed drink and it was poured using a 3 count pour.  She placed the pint glass directly into the ice well when making this drink which is a Health Code violation.  Most of the drinks she served were bottled and draft beer.  Draft beer was served with ¼ inch of head and in a cold glass.  Drinks made for servers were accompanied with a ticket and no server call outs were observed.  

There was one instance where she did not report to the POS after making a beverage for a walk up guest.  At approximately 4:50PM she served a guest she personally knew by name a pint of beer and did not report to the POS.  The agent did not see this drink accounted for on any tab.

Also, at approximately 5:02PM she served a single walk up guest a large pitcher of Blue Moon which is a violation of the liquor law as the pitcher is likely 64 ounces and a single customer can only be served 32 ounces of beer at one time.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

Food and Beverage Summary

·       Host 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’6 with reddish hair in a ponytail wearing a pink sweater and jeans.

There was a host on duty upstairs when we arrived at the establishment.  She did not greet us in a friendly manner instead asked “2 of you?” without smiling or welcoming us into the establishment.  It was very unwelcoming. Server 1 was at the host stand and since we were going to be her table, she led us to our table in the dining room.  Host 1 was not seen seating any tables and appeared to have gone off duty shortly after the evaluation began so the section was not scored.

Shortly after we sat down, two guests sat themselves in the dining room at a table nearby.  The agent watched as Server 1 and Bar 1 obviously walked past this table numerous times without greeting them or even noticing they hadn’t been acknowledged by staff members.  The agent observed them looking around as they were desperately trying to get a staff member to come to the table.  Finally, approximately 15-20 minutes after they sat down, the male patron went up to the bar and asked for menus and also asked to have a server sent to the table which is unacceptable in the agent’s opinion.  Server 2 approached shortly after to greet the table.

The agent was disconcerted by the lack of organization displayed by staff.  The agent feels staff need to be diligent about watching the front door and watching for new tables to be sat if a host is not on duty.  Also, the agent feels the slow business level at the time was such that the staff members should’ve been able to notice these new guests immediately.  In fact, the agent was surprised they did not walk out.

At the table the agent ordered an iced tea.  The tea tasted fresh brewed and was served with plenty of ice.  The agent requested sweetener.  The caddie it was delivered in was grimy and only half full.  The associate ordered a Michelob Ultra bottle.  The beer was cold and refreshing.

For an appetizer the chicken strips were ordered.  The breading was flimsy and was falling of the chicken which made a mess on the table.  The chicken was tender however neither the agent nor the associate cared for the flavor of the breading.  BBQ sauce and ranch was requested on the side.  Neither the agent nor the associate cared for the flavor of the BBQ sauce.

The agent ordered the Buffalo Chicken pizza with light chicken.  The agent was brought a pizza with tomatoes and onions on top.  At first the agent wondered if they made the mistake in ordering as neither vegetable is cared for by the agent and they would’ve been requested to be left off the pizza.  The agent then tasted the brown sauce on the pizza and realized it was the same BBQ sauce that had been served with the chicken and not enjoyed.  The agent believed the wrong pizza was brought so called over Server 1.

The agent asked Server 1 if the wing sauce was supposed to taste like BBQ sauce and if the pizza in front of the agent was the Buffalo Chicken pizza.  She stated it was the Buffalo pizza.  The agent stated they didn’t want that pizza and asked for a menu.  The agent then read the menu description of the BBQ pizza to Server 1 and stated that was obviously the pizza that had been delivered.  Server 1 then went to the POS to look at the ticket and realized she had rung in the wrong pizza.  She apologized and stated the correct pizza would be out soon.  She was genuinely apologetic and asked if the agent needed anything while waiting for the pizza which was appreciated by the agent.

The agent feels this mistake should’ve been caught at the window and the pizza should not have been delivered to the agent.  The fact that it was not realized until the menu description was read to her signifies to the agent Server 1 lacks menu knowledge.

 

The Buffalo Chicken pizza was served 19 minutes later and was definitely worth the wait - great stuff.  The cheddar and mozzarella cheese was perfectly melted and abundantly spread over the chicken.  The wing sauce had a great aroma and was spread along the bottom of the ingredients instead of a traditional red sauce.  The chicken was tender and paired well with the rest of the ingredients.  The crust was soft and had a great flavor and consistency.  The side of ranch served on the side was a cool contrast to the zipp of the wing sauce.

The BBQ Pizza was present on the check instead of the Buffalo Pizza.  The agent did not point out the mistake because the price for the two items is equivalent.  However, the agent feels the incorrect item should have been comped off and the correct item should have been accounted for due to inventory purposes.

The associate ordered the create your own pizza with Italian sausage, pepperoni, ham and bacon.  The meat was abundant and well seasoned.  The cheese was perfectly melted and the marinara had a great flavor.

The associate requested a box when the agent’s pizza was delivered and the agent asked for two boxes to be brought.  They were not delivered until 10 minutes later which is a significant delay in the agent’s opinion.

At the bar the agent ordered a Kilt Lifter draft.  The glass the beer was served in was approximately 22 ounces.  Even though the agent did not specify the size that was wanted the agent feels an upsize should be upsold as opposed to up served. Auto-upselling is a form of bartender theft in the Agent's opinion.

The beer was over flowing onto the bar top and the spill was not cleaned up by Bar 1 which is poor guest service.  The beer was delicious and refreshing.  The associate ordered a Michelob Ultra bottle.  The beer was equally cold and refreshing as the beer served at the table.  The agent is unsure if all items were properly charges for as an itemized receipt was not provided.

·       MOD 1:  Caucasian male approximately 6’ with brown hair and slightly balding wearing a sweater and jeans.

The agent is unsure if the MOD was properly identified.  This male was seen sitting at the curved bar top by the kitchen for the majority of the evaluation.  He was seen going behind the DJ booth which signified to the agent he was possibly a supervisor.  The agent feels that of he was the MOD he did a poor job of circulating through the facility.  He remained stationed at the side bar top and was not observed talking to guests.

The agent feels after the food mistake by Server 1 should’ve resulted in a table visit by the manager.


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, Liquor Law Violations, Employee Alcohol Consumption,

November 10, 2012 16:03 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary                                                                                                            

§        

·       Bar 1:  Named Xxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx male, athletic build, approximately 6’0”, with short black hair, wearing a black Xxxxx T-Shirt, and grey shorts.  Later in the evening these pants were changed to white and blue striped xxxxxxxxxx.

·       Bar 2:  xxxxxxxxxxxxx female, thin build, approximately 5’6 with long, straight xxxxx hair, wearing a pink tank top, black shorts, and axxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .

·       Bar 3:  xxxxxxxxxx female, thin build, approximately 5’3, with long xxxx hair, wearing a white, button up shirt, with three-quarter length sleeves, a pink crop-top underneath, and jean shorts.

·       Bar 4:  xxxxxxxxxx male, medium build, approximately 6’0, with dark hair and a xxxxxxxx, wearing an Xxxxx T-Shirt, and jeans.

·       Bar 5:  xxxxxxxxxx male, thin build, approximately 6’2, with xxxxxxx hair, xxxxxxxxxxx, wearing a black Xxxxx tank top, and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

The agent and associate approached the bar and were immediately greeted by Bartender 1, Xxxxx, whose name was overheard rather than provided by introduction.  Xxxxx was the only bartender on shift at that time.  Xxxxx leaned onto the bar and asked the agent and associate what they wanted to drink while scooping up a handful of ice from the ice bin in front of him, shaking all but one piece of ice out of his hand, and placing the ice in his mouth.  The agent and associate asked for a minute to think and Xxxxx rudely turned his back without any recognition or smile.

This is a 2-part AZ Health Code issue, as first Xxxxx placed his bare hands into the sanitized ice, and then touched his mouth with his hands and the product and then put his hands back into the ice bin without washing.

Xxxxx spoke to one of the customers sitting at the bar, eating a few more pieces of ice while talking to the patron, and then proceeded to stand in front of the register texting on his phone.  The agent and associate waited three minutes while Xxxxx was texting, at no point did he stop and look around at his customers to see if service was needed, and finally turned around saying “sorry about that.  Do you know what you want yet?”  The agent and associate placed a drink order (see food and beverage summary for details).

Xxxxx placed beverage napkins in front of the agent and associate and quickly served the beverages.  Xxxxx asked if the agent and associate would like to pay cash, a credit card was provided to start a tab, which Xxxxx swiped into the POS system after placing the drinks into the system, and placed the credit card into a box of cards.

Xxxxx never asked for proper identification. Agent's associate is well under the age of 30. This is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management.

At no point did Xxxxx attempt to strike up a conversation with the agent or associate and only asked if an additional drink was desired once throughout the entire evaluation.

He was noted to continuously grab fistfuls of ice from the ice bins, dropping all but one chip of ice back into the bin, and eating the single remaining chip while talking to customers.  Xxxxx was also observed using his bare hands, instead of tongs, to place and squeeze fruit and garnish into drinks, as well as use a dirty mixing tin to scoop ice into clean glassware, if he was not scooping the glassware directly into the ice bin.  Xxxxx was also noted to be frequently texting behind the bar throughout the evaluation.

Bartender 2 arrived behind the bar at approximately 9:54 pm.  She greeted various customers, showing off the teddy bear tied to her back and explaining to various customers that they were having a pajama party.  Bartender 2 was not observed texting behind the bar, nor having any integrity issues, but was stationed on the opposite side of the bar from where the agent and associate were sitting.

Bartender 3 arrived at approximately 10:07 pm, smiling to customers as she entered behind the bar.  Based on overheard conversations it became apparent that Bartender 3 was a customer or mutual friend of many patrons and was training to bartend at the establishment as a new hire.  Throughout the evaluation she was also polite and friendly with customers, but was minimally observed as she was being trained by Bartender 2 and stayed with her on the opposite side of the bar.

Bartender 4 arrived at approximately 10:10 pm, immediately checking in and chatting with the first three bartenders as well as the bar-back.

At 10:20pm he was noted to make a phone call behind the bar, which lasted approximately two minutes.  After the call he scanned the bar and began serving and associating with patrons.

Bartender 5 arrived shortly after Bartender 4, at approximately 10:17 pm.  Bartender 5 also checked in and chatted with the other staff members briefly, then waved and greeted many of the patrons who, at this point, were filling the bar.

When the agent and associate were ready to close the tab it took approximately ten minutes to catch the attention of one of the bartenders, all of whom were extremely busy by this time serving the high volume of customers.

Bartender 4 noticed the agent and associate’s need of service and yelled over the music “how can I help you”.  The agent gestured a desire to close their tab.  Bartender yelled again over the music inquiring about the last name on the tab, which the agent provided.  The tab was provided in a clean check presenter, signed, and returned.

Due to having multiple drinks spilled on the agent and associate, the remainder of the evaluation was completed away from the bar-top and in the crowd.

Multiple left issues were observed during this evaluation:

At 10:27 pm Xxxxx was observed ducking his head into the corner of the bar and quickly drinking a mixed shot through a straw.  He stood, scrunching his face in response to the strength of the liquor in the drink, emptied the remaining ice and straw into the trash, and continued to work.

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.

The alcohol also was not registered into the POS or any comp/spill sheet; therefore, Agent scores this as an integrity/theft issue. Consuming alcohol while on duty is also a dram shop liquor liability issue. Should an unfortunate incident happen, or an act of violence occur that results in litigation, Xxxxx's impairment can cause disastrous results for the owners.

At 10:30 pm Xxxxx was observed serving three shots of rumplemintz poured into rocks glasses without a jigger and as 1.5 ounce shots and then served the shots to three gentlemen by the service well without charging for the shots or placing them on a comp tab in the POS system.

At 10:37 Xxxxx was observed making 15 mixed drink shots, initially mixed in two separate mixing tins and distributed into 15 rocks glasses, then stacked the glasses in three piles and handed them over the bar to a gentlemen with guests sitting at one of the booths.  Xxxxx did not charge for the shots, nor put the shots into the POS system, but did take money from the gentlemen and agent observed him to put it directly into the tip cup.

At 10:39 Bartender 5 was observed making 6 shots, initially mixed in a mixing tin and poured evenly into rocks glasses, and handing them to a one girl over the bar without charging her or putting the drinks into the POS system at all.  This patron proceeded to carry the shots to the patio to serve to her friends.

This is also an ADLLC Violation.

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

At 10:46 Xxxxx was observed pouring 2 Don Julio shots without a jigger, as 1.5 ounce shots, and serving them to a patron who was previously served free drinks from the bar-back (see bar-back summary for details).  These drinks were not charged for nor entered into the POS system.

 

There was an additional integrity issue observed regarding the reputation of the bar rather than the staff:

In the beginning of the evaluation there were two female patrons sitting at the corner of the bar next to the agent and associate.  Each were initially dressed in regular clothes, however, as the bartenders changed in order to wear pajama party attire, one of the two patrons changed in the bathroom into a see-through, lace, tight, short dress, and extremely tall heels.  This change was previously known and strongly encouraged by all of the staff, clearing pointing out that it had been planned and discussed with the staff prior to the shift.  This patron sat at the bar in this outfit as well as a sports hat continuing to drink and dance to the music by waving her hands around her and aggressively nodding her head and body to the music.  

Later in the evening, when the servers came out with liquor bottles to free-pour into the patrons’ mouths, this patron was helped onto the bar by the bar-back and began aggressively dancing on the bar.  As she bounced up and down on the bar, continuing to wave her hands and arms around, her skirt continuously rode up her legs and above her rear end, exposing her rear as well as her purple thong.  Her see-through dress also obviously exposed her breasts and nipples to the crowd which is against the law.

This patron stayed on the bar, dancing, leaning down and dancing in front of and accepting tips from customers, and sexually and provocatively grinding up against a staff member dressed in a bear costume who was also on the bar.

TITLE 19, CHAPTER 1

R19-1-214. Sex Acts Prohibited, Real or Simulated

No licensee shall permit, on the licensed premises, any person to perform acts of or acts which constitute or simulate:

1. Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law;

2. The touching, caressing, or fondling of the breast, buttocks, anus, or genitals;

3. The displaying of any portion of the areola of the female breast, or any portion of his or her pubic hair, anus, vulva, or genitals; or

To those patrons appearing concerned that the girl was going to knock over their drinks, and would move their drinks for her, she would lean over and yell “don’t worry.  I am a professional!”

Although some customers were initially entertained by this, most customers quickly shifted from smiling and laughing to shaking their heads at the spectacle on the bar.  On more than one occasion the patron danced in front of a group of girls, or guys, sitting at the bar, who proceeded to leave their seats and spots and move to a different section of the establishment to get away from the girl.

This was a behavior that appeared to be seen as distasteful and inappropriate by more than one patron as well as the agent and associate.  The agent feels that it is also important to note that a patron dancing on the bar, especially in that attire and platform heels, is an extreme safety as well as health and liability risk.

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, Intoxicated Security Employee Theft

September 6, 2012 21:39 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

My associate and took seats at the bar and were immediately greeted by a Caucasian Blonde female with tattoos on her xxx. She did not introduce herself but we later ascertained her name was Xxxxx. Xxxxx had a BIG smile in her greet of us and asked what we wanted to drink. Agent associate asked if there were any specials and she named a Kettle Orange Vodka as the special. Agent asked a few questions about items and Xxxxx showed good product knowledge. We placed an order and she went to go prepare it. She prepared our drinks quite differently. My associates drink got a 1 1/4 oz count pour where my drink was nearly a 6 count and almost double the alcohol. Agent did not order a double and was quite puzzled by the alcohol volume disparity. We started a tab with Xxxxx and she took the appropriate measures.

Xxxxx is very friendly and seems to fit into this bar like a glove. She's friendly with regulars as well as new guests as she strikes conversation and is very pleasant. She has good bartender presence for the most part and has good bartending prioritization skills.  The one hygiene issue of note was that she frequently scratches the scalp of her head and does not wash her hands afterwards.

However, she does have some bartending issues issue that need to be addressed. First, her pour counts are all over the place. They range anywhere from 1 1/4 oz to over 3 oz at times and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme/reason to it. The patterns that were picked up by the Agent were a 1 1/4 oz pours for the Kettle Orange that was on special. I even saw one under-poured with a single ounce shot. Agent saw this many times through the night. Women in general usually received a higher pour volume, as did those who apparently were tipping larger. With the later of these, this Agent scores this as a bartender theft occurrence as delivering additional alcohol over what is prescribed by management (1 1/4 oz pour) to increase gratuity and/or social status is a form of bartender theft.

Second, her ringing procedures are lackadaisical. This can be attributed to laziness and/or masking of integrity issues and bartender theft. Countless times throughout the evening there were drinks delivered with no movement made to the register to record them (see observations below).

Another rather important issue was some of the guests in the bar looked to be of questionable age and Xxxxx was serving them. It's of the agent's opinion that she probably felt that intoxicated Xxxxx had already carded them giving her a false sense of security. Bottom line is though she served these guest alcohol. Agent will add that I cannot substantiate the age of these guests; however, it was of my opinion they were of questionable age.

Xxxxx fell behind many times on clearing glassware and wiping the bar top down. Agent put her arm in a puddle of liquid and was not pleased about it, then exacerbated when I had to go to the unclean restroom to wash up. My associate commented that if security Xxxxx wasn't such a life of the party so to speak, he could have helped her maintain the bar better, as for the most part she did all the work.

Because Xxxxx was busy seemingly running the entire bar, the facility didn't seem to be running at it's best efficiency level. If Xxxxx had a security member who didn't disappear and helped her frequently, the bar would have run much smoother and a bi-product of this would have been more sales revenue.

Xxxxx was at about a 90% clip in using cocktail cards with guests. Drinks were ordered and served in a timely manner except for some occasions when she got busy.

Xxxxx scoops ice with glassware. This is just wrong and a very bad habit that should be broken right away. It's very unsanitary and a cause for health concerns, and possible injury due to broken glass.

Specific observations:

As aforementioned, Xxxxx had a propensity to not ruing drinks. This makes it very cumbersome to substantiate bartender theft occurrences accurately. This agent suggests that management make some immediate policy changes and create a make a drink - ring a drink policy and enforce it. This will force accountability.

At 9:39 she prepared a drink with a 5 count of alcohol and did not move to record the drink.

At 9:43 she prepared 3 shots of whiskey and did not move to record the drinks.  Age observed her move to POS 2 min later and this could have been the ring in.

At 9:47 she delivered 1 yellow and 3 brown beers to a female patron and did not move to record. This woman looked of questionable age. At 10:00 it appeared she delay rang these beers.

At 9:48 Agent observed the bartender has a personal drink behind the bar. Agent cannot ascertain the contents.

9:45 Agent's drink is dry and she is not asked for a refill until 8 minutes later.

At 9:55 Agent observed Xxxxx counting money from a wood box next to cig display. Agent would stress to management that NO money should be handled outside of the POS drawer and legitimate transactions. This makes a rather ripe situation for bartender theft when this is allowable.

At 9:58 3 shots (Jameson?) were delivered to customers and no movement to record the drinks. One consumed my Security Xxxxx.

At approximately 10:01 Security Xxxxx took money out of tip jar and then gave it to a customer, who then appeared to give it to Xxxxx and then she put it back into tip jar. It was a very bizarre occurrence to observe and highly suspicious in nature. Age could not verify exactly the nature of what happened but suspects maybe the money hand changing round robin was a lame effort to satisfy a security camera. That is just an hypothesis. Regardless, the alcohol went unaccounted for.

At 10:06 Xxxxx under pours a guest a Kettle orange with less than an ounce of alcohol.

At 10:10  3 shots were delivered and no movement to record the drinks. Xxxxx also drank a shot with the guests but it appeared to be in a different sort of glass than the others.

At 10:15 agent observed Xxxxx make a drink with a 4 count of alcohol into a short glass, then the customer exclaimed that she wanted it tall and Xxxxx poured the drink into a pint and then added another ounce of alcohol. She was not observed accounting for the drink at that time.

Xxxxx asked and prepared a drink for my associate, but for some odd reason did not ask me for one. Agent started to suspect that she may be impaired of some sorts, as I also observed her making other simple mistakes such as delivering drinks to the wrong guest after making them. this happened a few times.

Several minutes later she asked me if I wanted another drink and went to prepare it, She made my drink with a 4 count 1 1/2 oz pour and did not report to the POS to record it on my tab.

At 10:26 Xxxxx appeared "distracted" delivering drink to wrong person the corrected herself. She did not report to the POS to record the drink.

At 10:29 Xxxxx almost gave change to wrong patron.

At 10:33 my associate ordered a drink and she prepared it with a 6 count of alcohol. This time she DID report immediately to the POS.

At 10:36 My associate reported that it appeared Xxxxx was drinking a beer. At 10:43 A male patron at the bar Gave Xxxxx another shot of alcohol.

At 10:44 Xxxxx made a cocktail and did not report to the POS.

At 10:50 Xxxxx is observed going to the POS and group ringing sales all at once. It appeared as if she was looking around at guest sand drawing from a mental inventory in order to try and correctly ascertain all the alcohol drinks she had delivered for tabs.

At 10:56 Xxxxx prepared 2 cocktails for a man and a woman at the bar. One was poured with a 5 count and the other was poured with a 6 count. This really exemplified the inconsistent pours of this bartender.

At 10:58 Bartender was observed coming out from bar and collecting glassware. Doorman Xxxxx nowhere to be seen. She was also later observed wiping the tables.

At 11:11 Xxxxx was observed delivering 2 drinks and a beer and not observed reporting to the POS to record.

At 11:12 Xxxxx made 2 bombers of some sort and not observed reporting to the POs to record.

At 11:17 she was observed making a cocktail for one guest and not ringing it in and then moving to another guest an deserving him a Corona and not ringing it in either.

At 11:23 is observed going to the POS and group ringing sales all at once. It appeared as if she was looking around at guest sand drawing from a mental inventory in order to try and correctly ascertain all the alcohol drinks she had delivered for tabs.

At 11:26 Agent was a bit distracted by something that happened near the pool table. When I turned around the POS screen had "No Sale" and Xxxxx was counting money in the wood drawer. Agent cannot substantiate what happened.

At around 11:35 Xxxxx gave two shots to customers who looked as if they had already tabbed out. One of the customers tried to pay and appeared she shook it off in a "don't worry about it" fashion. The shots were not seen accounted for.

11:40 Security Xxxxx doing another shot of alcohol.

Tab procedures were carried out in a timely manner. No itemized receipt  was given.

Security Summary

Upon arrival, security Xxxxx was at the front entrance and asked us for ID's. I pulled my wallet from my purse and showed it to him and he mumbled something inaudible and I said "what?" and he leaned in to ask me again and that is when I was ht with a wall alcohol smelling bad breath.  I showed him my ID again and took a step back and took note that he had a  goofy look on his face and glassy eyes. His level of alcohol impairment was absurd. As we passed, he yelled something at my associate and gave him a fist bump. My associate then said to me, "Is that Door Guy totally wasted or what?"

The professionalism of this guy was way out of line. He also appeared to do next to nothing to help out with Xxxxx. His numerous disappearances left the door unattended and people just walking in without properly showing ID. many of the disappearances were associated with a young Caucasian female with red hair.

At one point he stumbled through the bar in an attempt to hug some guy spilling drinks and bumping into other guests.

This employee is a liquor liability dram shop lawsuit waiting to happen.

He did not greet us farewell upon our departure.                                                           

Beverage Summary

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

My associate ordered one of the Kettle Orange drinks and it was awful and it was sent back. He then ordered Knob Creek and Coke and the drinks were inconsistent with taste because each one was made with different volumes of alcohol.

Agent had Malibu and Diet drinks and it was the same issue with inconsistent tastes because of fluctuating liquor volumes.

The two shots listed at the end of the bar section were for me and my associate. We tabbed out and purposely tipped Xxxxx rather large and as an integrity test pre-text, said "let's order a shot before we go" She delivered the shots and said they were free.

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 - ADLLC Violation, Alcohol Consumption While on Duty, Poor Customer Service

April 30, 2012 19:59 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary                                                          

  • Bar 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’6 with a slender frame and shoulder length brown hair wearing a black tank top and jeans.

 The agent and associate took a seat at the bar top and were greeted by Bar 1.  She provided water glasses and a carafe of water and stood in front of us waiting for a drink order to be placed.  She did not provide a friendlier greeting including welcoming us or verbally asking what we would like to drink.  We requested a minute to look at the wine list.

She returned a short time later and asked “What do ya think.” which is much too casual of a statement for the nature of the establishment in the agent’s opinion.

A drink order was placed and made quickly (see food and beverage summary for details).  She did not use beverage napkins for the drinks even though there were beverage napkins neatly placed on the bar top nearby.

She did not report to the POS to start us a tab or place an itemized chit in front of us.  In fact, no guests at the bar had chits in front of them on the bar top.            

Approximately 35 minutes after the drinks were ordered Bar 1 rang in our drinks, printed the check and placed it in front of us on the bar in a check presenter.  The agent understands the house policy of providing guests a receipt after items are ordered but felt Bar 1’s method was more similar to auto dropping the check as it was presented in a presenter. Agent points out that this methodology is sieve of opportunity for bartender theft and suggests that management address it. Moreover, it's very cumbersome to "spot" for bartender theft if the bartender simply isn't ringing in drinks.

 She did not ask us of another round was wanted and the agent’s beverage was nearly empty.

 The agent provided payment and it sat on the presenter for approximately 5 minutes before it was processed which surprised the agent since Bar 1 was so quick to drop the check she had no rush to process the payment for the agent.  She thanked us in-genuinely in the agent’s opinion and quickly picked up the presenter to collect her tip. 

She did not acknowledge us as we left which made for a poor last impression in the agent’s opinion.

 Overall the agent felt Bar 1 was not very friendly towards the agent and associate.  She only seemed interested in conversing with guests she already knew. 

 She was observed eating food off of guests’ plates behind the bar while on duty and in view of guests. 

 She also consumed wine regularly while on duty behind the bar which is a violation of the Liquor Law.  She was not discreet in any way.  She kept a glass of red wine by the open bottle she was pouring from on the back bar.

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.

The agent noted Bar 1 doing side work preparing to end her shift.  She was cleaning glassware and refilling mixers in pour containers.  She was marrying the mixers in pour containers that were already in use which is ill advised in the agent’s opinion.  The agent recommends new pour containers be used when prepping mixers so that the oldest product get used first. 

 To protect spotter anonymity further details from the bar evaluation can be found in the food and beverage summary.

 Neither the agent nor the associate were asked for ID.  One of which is very near 21; therefore, this is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management.

The agent and associate were the only guests aside from regulars and employees at the bar top.  To protect anonymity further details from the evaluation are as follows:

There was an instance of poor guest service observed with Bar 1.  At approximately 10:36 two guests entered the establishment.  She immediately told the guests the establishment closed at 10 and they left the establishment rather disappointed.  She did not attempt to invite them to the bar top to enjoy a cocktail or state they should definitely come back before 10 to sample the cuisine.

The agent made a call prior to visiting the establishment that was not used for scoring purposes.  The agent inquired about the hours the kitchen and establishment were open until to insure ample time to perform both a dining room and bar evaluations.  The employee that answered the call stated the kitchen closed at 10PM but the establishment closed at 11PM.  The instance of Bar 1 turning guests away decreases revenue from the establishment and also could possibly deter the guests from returning which is bad for the establishment as a whole in the agent’s opinion.  The agent feels all guests entering the establishment should be provided good customer service and be invited into the establishment during hours of operation even if it is close to closing time and staff is ready to end their shifts.

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, Dram Shop Liquor Liability Issues, employee alcohol consumption, free drinksfor friends.

February 2, 2012 16:16 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’4” with xxxxxxxxx brown hair and xxxx xxx tattoos on her zzz wearing a red tank top, short jean shorts and xxxxxxxxx.
  • Bartender 2:  Caucasian female approximately 5’7” with brown hair and a xxxx piercing near xxxxx wearing a white midriff baring tank top, short jean shorts and a xxxxxxxxxxx.  She was overheard being called Xxxxx.

The Agent and Associate took a seat at the bar and weren’t greeted until three minutes later which was unreasonable in the Agent’s opinion to due to the lull in business at the time we sat at the bar.  Bartender 1 approached and asked if we had been helped.  We stated we had not.  She placed beverage napkins in front of us and asked what we wanted to drink.  A drink order was placed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She returned with the drinks quickly and asked if we wanted to start a tab.  The Agent provided a card to secure the tab and it was placed behind the bar in an xxxxxxxxxxx which made the Agent feel that the card would be secure and not easily misplaced. 

Bartender 1 cleared a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx from in front of us but did not wipe the bar top down which left peanut shell remnants from the previous patron scattered along the bar top where we were now trying to enjoy our beverages which was unsightly and unpleasant in the Agent’s opinion.

The Associate’s beverage was empty for six minutes before being offered a new one by Bartender 2.  She made the drink quickly and added it to our tab (see food and beverage summary for details).  Later in the evaluation another round was placed with Bartender 1.  The drinks were made quickly and the Agent requested the tab be closed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She ran the card for payment and delivered the receipt quickly.  No itemized receipt was present.  She thanked us with a slight smile.

Overall, the Agent feels the bartenders were pleasant but not very friendly.  Neither bartender introduced herself by name in case we needed anything.  Also, they seemed to only personally converse with regulars and patrons they already knew which is ineffective towards building new clientele for the establishment in the Agent’s opinion.  Both bartenders lacked in attentiveness in the Agent’s opinion.  Guests would often have to request a new beverage as opposed to the staff offering new beverages when levels were low.  Also, glassware remained on the bar for significant amounts of time after guests were finished before it was eventually cleared.

Both girls were observed on their cell phones during the evaluation.  They kept them near the terminal and were texting and checking them often. 

The Agent witnessed several possible theft and integrity issues with both bartenders during the evaluation.

At 4:53 PM Bartender 2 served a guest a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.  This guest will be referred to as guest A as he will be mentioned again regarding staff not ringing in drinks.

At 5:00 PM a guest approached the bar top and stated they were not satisfied with their Bloody Mary.  Bartender 1 made her a new cocktail and did not report to the POS to account for the new beverage or place the unwanted beverage on a spill or comp tab.

At 5:01 PM Bartender 1 served two guests who had already closed out two shots of Rumplemintz.  When they got ready to leave, they asked what they owed her for the shots and she stated they were good.  Also, these shot glasses remained in the bar top for 15 minutes before being cleared which is excessive in the Agent’s opinion.

At 5:12 PM Bartender 2 made a shot for a guest on the patio side of the bar and did not report to the POS.

At 5:16 PM Bartender 2 served one patron two pints of beer and two bottles of beer which is a violation of the liquor law as one person cannot be served more than 32 ounces of beer at one time.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

At 5:17 PM Bartender 2 served guest A a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.

At 5:21 PM Bartender 2 was observed pouring a six count of Crown Royal into a Styrofoam cup for a guest, She did not collect money for the beverage which is a bar theft occurrence. The guest then left the premise with the alcohol drink in hand, which is a violation of the AZ liquor Law.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle.

Providing alcohol for customers to leave the premise with is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management immediately.

At 5:22 PM the door greeter asked Bartender 2 to pour three shots of Jack for guests he seemed to know personally.  She served the guests the shots and they gave her a ten dollar bill which went into the tip jar.  She blew them kisses as they left.  No move was made to the POS to account for the drinks on a comp tab.

At 5:34 PM Bartender 2 served guest A a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.

At 5:39 PM the door greeter had brought in a check presenter from outside.  Bartender 1 and Bartender 2 were discussing the tip and the Agent overheard the received a $20 tip on a $6 dollar tab which is suspicious in the Agent’s opinion.  Then, Bartender 2 was overheard stating, “Great, we’re going to get shit for this one.”

At 5:45 PM Bartender 1 poured a seven count Jack Daniels into a Styrofoam cup and gave the cup to a female guest that was on the patio.  She did not report to the POS. Customer left premise with the beverage shortly afterwards.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle

At 5:56 PM Bartender 1 served a vodka cranberry to a female companion of guest A and did not report to the POS.

At 6:02 PM a Hispanic female in a Xxxxx Xxxxx shirt came behind the bar.  The Agent did not have a view of what she was doing but left the from behind the bar with a Styrofoam cup.  She was observed giving a “lock it up and throw away the key” gesture to Bartender 2.  The instance seemed suspicious.  Also, the Agent recommends only on duty bartenders and barbacks be allowed to come behind the bar.

At 6:06 PM Bartender 2 made the same Hispanic female three shots and did not report to the POS.

Both girls were using the center terminal at the north end of the bar which the Agent had an unobstructed view of.  The Agent is unsure if any of the aforementioned drinks were eventually accounted for on guest or comp tabs.

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, employee alcohol consumption, free drinks, ADLLC Violations, dram shop and liquor liability issues, employee alcohol consumption, security guard alcohol consumption..

December 19, 2011 19:58 by administrator

 

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her early thirties, with long xXXXXXX hair and a slim build.  She wore a xxxx xxxx hat, a teal tank top, and jean shorts.  She had visible tattoos on her XXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXXX.
  • Bartender 2- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her late twenties, with short curly xXXXXXX hair and a petite frame.  She wore a xxx cowboy hat, a black tank, black jacket, jean shorts, and knee high xxxx socks.
  • **Off Duty Bartender- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her early thirties, with medium length XXX hair and XXXXXXXXX.  She was approximately 5’5” in height, and wore a black XXXXXXX XXXXX sweat suit.  Possibly a manager, as she had keys to the registers and used them several times.

Agent and Associate took a seat at the bar, and were quickly greeted by Bartender 1.  Bartender 1 did not offer her name at any time.  She placed cocktail napkins on the bar top, and asked for a drink order.  Bartender 1 seemed very knowledgeable of the drink specials offered.  

She was very friendly and personable with all the patrons at the bar, though it seemed easier to get her attention if one was a “regular.”  There were several instances in which Agent and Associate had empty glasses for several minutes before being noticed by a bartender.  Agent recommends employees implement the 75% rule, in which employees offer additional beverages to patrons whose drinks become less than 75% full.  This will prevent customers from being left without a beverage, as well as possibly boosting sales.  

Agent also noted that Bartender 1 used cash from the tip jar to make change for a customer.  Agent recommends employees refrain from handling cash in the tip jars in order to prevent confusion or the mishandling of monies.

When preparing the beverages, Bartender 1 used the designated ice scoop.  Her pour count was inconsistent throughout the evaluation, as it varied from as little as a two count, to as heavy as an eight count.  Agent suggests all employees use a constant 1 ½ ounce pour to maintain consistency and accuracy among all prepared beverages.

She was fairly consistent in entering beverages into the POS after preparation. There were, however, several instances which warrant the managers’ attention:

At 4:26 PM Bartender 1 prepared six shots of honey-colored liquor from a chilled bottle.  She walked five of the shots over to Off Duty Bartender, and left the sixth shot next to the POS system.  At no time did she attempt to enter the shots into the POS system.

At 4:36 PM Bartender 1 acknowledges a male customer with who she is familiar with.  She mixes him a cocktail and places it in front of the man.  He asks what the beverage is, since he did not give a verbal order.  She explains the drink and does not make an attempt to enter the beverage into the POS or collect any money.

At 4:42 Bartender 1 prepared an eight count Vodka and Redbull in a Styrofoam cup that Security 1 had been drinking from.  Agent found this disturbing for several reasons.  This is an excessive pour, as it was in excess of 3 oz of alcohol.  Preparing an alcoholic beverage in a Styrofoam cup can lead to the beverage being removed from the premises, whether on purpose or accident.  Security 1 was still on duty at the time and is an ADLLC violation.  This beverage was also not entered into the POS system which is a bartender theft occurrence.

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.

At approximately 5:15 PM Bartender 1 gave a bottle of Bud Light to a male customer, and did not make an attempt to enter the beer into the POS system.

Bartender 2 seemed preoccupied (mostly with her cell phone), and offered most of her attention to the Off Duty Bartender and her friends.  When preparing her beverages, she did use the designated ice scoop to retrieve drinks from the well.  Her pour count was also inconsistent.  Though most of her beverages were prepared with the accurate four count (1 ½ ounce) pour, there were several instances in which singles were ordered but doubles were prepared.

Agent was also concerned with the placement of Bartender 2’s bottle opener, as she stored it in between her shorts and bare bottom.  This is an AZ Health Code violation, as well as unprofessional.  Agent recommends bottle openers be stored in the pocket or attached to a retractable clip on the pants.

Agent was very concerned with Bartender 2’s inconsistency in entering beverages into the POS.  Several instances in particular stood out, and are listed below.

At 4:16 PM Bartender 2 prepared a Crown Royal cocktail in a Styrofoam cup for a customer.  The customer had already been drinking from this cup, so Agent assumed this was not the first cocktail prepared in the Styrofoam container.  The customer, dressed in all black attire, then walked around on the patio, as well as on the side walk outside of the establishment, with the cup.  This is an AZ Liquor Code violation, as open containers holding alcohol are not permitted to be removed from the premises.  Furthermore, Bartender 2 made no attempt to enter the beverage in the POS system which is a bartender theft occurrence.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle.

At approximately 4:20 PM Bartender 2 prepared three Vodka Redbull cocktails, and gave them to friends of the Off Duty Bartender.  She did not attempt to enter the cocktails after delivering the drinks.

At 4:25 PM Bartender 2 handed a Bud Light Bottle to a male customer, and did not move to the POS system to enter it.

Around 4:30 PM Bartender 2 prepared three yellow shots (Agent assumed they were White Gummi Bears).  She handed them to a group of customers at the bar. The patrons asked what they were, as if they had not ordered them. After drinking the shots, patrons thanked Bartender 2 and gave her “high-fives.”  Though Bartender 2 eventually migrated to the POS, Agent was unable to confirm if the shots were entered, as other beverages had been prepared and delivered in between that time.

Both Bartenders’ 1 & 2 habitually played on their cell phones in blatant view of customers.  Though Bartender 2 only used her phone while stationed at the POS, Bartender 1 used her cell phone near the POS and in front of customers while conversing with the patrons.  They seemed to be texting and playing on their Facebook sites.  Agent felt this to be extremely unprofessional.

At the end of the evaluation, the check was placed in a clean presenter, though it did have an error.  (Please refer to Beverage Summary for further details.) Bartenders 1 & 2 thanked Agent and Associate and said goodbye.

Agent did not witness either bartender drinking or smoking, though Bartender 2 seemed to be consuming cough drops.

 

Security Summary

  • Security 1- XXXXXXX male, in his mid-thirties, with XXXXX XXX hair, a XXXXX, XXX, and thinly XXXXX XXXX.  He had a large, muscular build, and wore a black staff shirt under a XXXXXXXXt.

Upon approaching the establishment, Agent and Associate were nonchalantly stopped by Security 1 and asked for identification.  He did not use Agent and Associate’s name when observing the identification. Security 1 seemed unfriendly, and did not tell Agent and Associate to enjoy the visit, or anything at all for that matter.

As previously mentioned in Bartender Summary, Agent witnessed Security 1 drinking Vodka Redbull while working.  This is very unprofessional, as well as a safety risk and against the law. This is a dram shop issue that should be addressed by management.  If the security staff is intoxicated, they are unreliable for maintaining safety and upholding liquor laws, not to mention should something terrible happen and it is discovered that security was alcohol impaired, it could lead to a serious dram shop problem.

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.

Security 1 seemed very distracted by the patrons congregating on the patio. Security 1 spent a majority of the evaluation visiting with the customers, and Agent did not note any time in which Security 1 walked through the bar to monitor the situation.  Agent only noted a handful of times in which he actually entered the facility, and that was to get a refill on his cocktail and to check the score of the game.

When Agent and Associate left, Security 1 did not acknowledge the departure.



Beverage Summary

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Lastly, Associate ordered a XXXXXXX from Bartender 1.  The XXXXX was served ice cold and was full-flavored.  This beer, however, was not entered into the POS system after delivery, and was not on the final tab. Giving away alcohol drinks to a trained bar theft spotter, without prompting,  leads that Agent to assume that a serious problem or culture of theft exists at this establishment.

 

Management Summary

  • Off Duty Bartender/Manager- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her early thirties, with xxxxxx and xxxx xxx.  She was approximately xxxx in height, and wore a black XXXXXXX xxxxx sweat suit.  Possibly a manager, as she had keys to the registers and used them several times.

Though it did not appear that there was a manager on duty, there was an off duty employee that Agent surmised to be a manager. Agent was deeply concerned by the woman’s behavior during the evaluation.  Off Duty Bartender/Manager was seated on the xxxend of the bar on the xxxx when Agent arrived.  It was clear that she had already been drinking, as there were several cocktail glasses in front of her, one of which she was drinking from. (A pint glass containing an orange colored cocktail.)

Shortly after Agent arrived, Agent noticed Off Duty Bartender/Manager get up from her bar stool and walk around to the server’s station.  She then bent underneath the bar and started to handle the register.  Agent found this inappropriate, as no cash handling should be done by someone under the influence of alcohol.  Approximately fifteen minutes later, she returned behind the bar and pulled out the cash drawer again.

Around 4:20 PM Agent heard a yell coming from the Off Duty Bartender/Manager’s direction.  Agent witnessed the off duty employee crawl up onto the bar and start smashing glass beer bottles into the trash can.  Agent could not believe the behavior of the off duty employee.  Regardless if the woman was a manager or not, this makes for a very unprofessional appearance.

Off Duty Bartender/Manager remained drinking at the bar the entire evaluation.  Many of the free drinks Agent witnessed bartenders giving away went to Off Duty Bartender/Manager’s party.

Because the manager performed an "Act of Working" in the eyes of the law that would be considered on duty and had this Agent been an ADLLC officer this would have been an ADLLC violation.              

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. 2011


BARTENDER THEFT - Bartender not ringing drinks, intoxicated bartender, employee drug use, liquor violations, heath code violations, smoking law violations.

September 22, 2011 00:31 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1 – Caucasian male with xxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx wearing xxxxxxxxxxxxxx shirt and xxxxxx with tattoos on xxxxxx.
  • Bartender 2 – Caucasian male with xxxxxx wearing a xxxxxxxxxx down shirt and xxxxxxxxx with black Dickies hanging down below his butt.

Agent and associate took a seat at the bar and were greeted by bartender 2 within 2 minutes.

He approached and spun napkins onto the bar top and asked what we would like to drink.  He did not offer a specialty drink menu so agent asked for one. 

He did not introduce himself or ask if we would like anything to eat.

Bartender 2 set about making the drinks we ordered right away and returned with them placing them on the cocktail napkins and chatting with us for a moment before moving down the bar to speak to another guest.  Bartender 2 made no move to the POS, did not quote us a price and did not request a credit card for a tab.  There was an issue with one of the drinks. (Please see food and beverage summary for details.)

Later in the evaluation associates drink was completely empty for nearly 5 minutes before bartender 2 approached and asked about another.  While he made the drink he was quite engrossed in a conversation with another bar guest and remained so when he dropped off the drink.  He did not take the empty away and made no move to the POS to record the drink.

Agent observed bartender 2 rolling a beer bottle on top of a cooler behind the bar and when the guest asked why he was doing this, the bartender went into detail about how it breaks up the sediment from the bottom of the bottle, but then when he opened the beer right after rolling it, a large amount of it foamed over onto the top of the cooler.  Agent thought it was a nice touch to roll the guests beer, but felt it was a bit odd that he allowed it to spill on the top of the cooler and neglected to clean it up.

Agent and associate had nearly no dealing with bartender 1 during the evaluation; however agent noted from afar that bartender 1 was quite stone faced.  He did not smile, introduce himself, or offer any pleasant welcoming behavior to any of the guests he was observed dealing with.  He was quite sarcastic which a few of the guests found amusing, but agent felt he could have attempted to be much friendlier.

For quite a while bartender 1 was observed sitting on a foot stool behind the bar doing something in one of the coolers which agent surmised was possibly taking inventory or cleaning.  For another large portion of the evaluation the bartender 1 was gone from behind the bar leaving bartender 2 to handle the bar top on his own which was not too busy for a single bartender at the time.

Agent observed bartender 1 pour Don Julio into a large snifter which he had laying on its side apparently to measure the pour.  Agent estimated that there was 4 – 5 ounces of tequila in the snifter when the pour was complete and agent does not believe that the guest ordered a double; regardless it was more accurately a quadruple. Bartender 1 did move right to the POS after serving the drink.

This is also an ADLLC Violation and a dram shop issue that management should address.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

Agent noted that there were no tab chits in front of any guest during the evaluation and no guests were observed paying cash as they went either.

Agent observed bartender 2 pour two 6 count shots of Sambucca into small rocks glasses, hand one to the guest and keep one for himself, toast the guest and drink the alcohol while standing behind the bar.  He then continued talking to the guest and made no move to the POS to record; which is obviously an ADLLC Violation, not to mention a theft occurrence.

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.

Agent observed bartender 1 serve three 4 count pour shots of wild turkey to 3 bar guests while one of the guests appeared to be objecting and afterward, replace the bottle to its shelf, but make no move to the POS.

There were three occasions that agent observed bartender 2 or the server attempting to deliver guests food, but bartender 2 had put the wrong item into the system which is more evidence to agent’s suspicion that the bartender was not sober (see addendum). He incorrectly ordered xxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx and a xxxxxxxx dessert which ended up being offered to and eaten by other guests for free.  Not only was this a profit loss, but it meant the guest that ordered food had to wait even longer for their food to be prepared, and ones that were going to order food didn’t because they got free food.

Bartender 2 was observed serving numerous drinks during the evaluation and there were only 5 times that agent observed him approaching the POS.  When he did approach the POS he did not even look around as if he was attempting to remember what he had served to enter it in all at once.  Agent estimates that bartender 2 served 10-15 drinks that were not accounted for in the POS.

Other than the 3 aforementioned shots of Wild Turkey, the few drinks that agent observed bartender 1 serve appeared to be entered into the POS.

There were occasions during the evaluation that agent noted glassware not being removed from in front of guests when they received new beverages and also the top of the dishwasher and both sides of the service well located at the end of the bar were covered with dirty dishes.  Agent understands that it is important for bartenders to spend time engaging with guests, but it is equally important not to let things become unsightly or unhealthy.

During the evaluation agent observed 3 men smoking cigarettes at the bar and neither of the bartenders appeared to be concerned in the least about the issue at all.  In fact, bartender 2 was observed lighting one of the men’s cigarettes with a match for him.  The men were at the bar for some time and they all had more than one cigarette.  Not only is this a violation of the AZ Smoke Free Act, but it is disrespectful to other guests.  Agent and associate were certainly not asked if we minded and neither were any of the other guests at the bar.  Agent was appalled that the bartenders would allow such behavior and totally disregard the law and the feelings of the other guests in the establishment.

36-601.01. Smoke-free Arizona act

As defined by the law, all violating proprietors are subject to be fined up to $500 for each offense.

B. Smoking is prohibited in all public places and places of employment within the state of Arizona

I. An owner, manager, operator or employee of place regulated by this law shall inform any person who is smoking in violation of this law that smoking is illegal and request that the illegal smoking stop immediately.

K. A person who smokes where smoking is prohibited is guilty of a petty offense with a fine of not less than fifty dollars and not more than three hundred dollars.

When agent and associate were ready to tab out bartender 1 was away from the bar and had been for 15 minutes or so and bartender 2 was chatting with a guest.  It took 10 minutes for agent and associate to get bartender 2 attention to get our tab so we could close out.

Addendum:

Food and Beverage Summary

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

We chose a seat at a booth on the left side of the establishment from the entrance.

The specialty cocktails ordered were:

xxxxxxxxxxx which was served with a lime wedge in a stemmed water glass, tasted good, but the ginger beer was a bit flat.

Old Fashioned which was served in a rocks glass and garnished with a black cherry in the center of an orange twist.  The drink was very good and a bit different than the typical old fashioned, but was a nice twist.

xxxxxxxx was served in a martini glass with grenadine pooled in the bottom.  The drink was fruity and very cold and was quite good.

xxxxxx which was served on the rocks with a lime wedge.  The Daiquiri was quite different than expected which agent believes was from the Maraschino Liquor and the grapefruit juice was clearly not fresh as it almost tasted of aluminum, but overall the cocktail was good.

xxxxxxxxxx which associate was excited to find that the establishment carried as it is their favorite and very difficult to find.

For appetizers we ordered the xxxxxxxx and the xxxxxxxxx which were both absolutely delightful!!

The xxxxxxxx were extremely tender, juicy and flavorful and the horseradish sauce had just a  tiny bite to it which was nice as it wasn’t overpowering.

The xxxx was delicate and fresh and the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx were a beautiful presentation and an amazing flavor combination.  Thumbs up to the chef!!

When the server dropped the check he said “Tonight is industry night, and I’m sure you are in the industry, so I gave you the discount.” Smiled and walked away without verifying.  Agent noted that the discount was 25%.

During the bar evaluation associate sat down first and had brought their Heffe from the dining table setting it on the bar.  Bartender 2 walked up and threw the beer away and asked what he could get associate to drink.  Associate said that he had thrown away the last half of their beer, so bartender 2 vehemently apologized saying that he is always doing that and got him a new beer saying that it was on him.

Agent sat and asked if there was fresh grapefruit juice available to which the answer was no that they were out, so agent ordered a xxxxxxxx.  Bartender 2 prepared the cocktail with a 6 count pour placed it on the beverage napkin and said it was on him because he didn’t have fresh grapefruit.

Only managers and owners are allowed to give away free alcohol. This is an ADLLC Violation.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

3. It is unlawful:  For a distiller, vintner, brewer or wholesaler knowingly to sell, dispose of or give spirituous liquor to any person other than a licensee

Agent offered to buy another guest at the bar a drink at this juncture and they ordered a xxxxxxxxx from Bartender 2.  He poured a 9 count of makers, a 4 count of Rye and then swirled the glass with an Italian sweet vermouth that he said was excellent and promised that they would love this xxxxxx.  He poured the drink from the tin into the martini glass and then dumped about 2 ounces of the mix down the drain.  He made no move to the POS.

Agent called bartender 1 over because I couldn’t get bartender 2’s attention and asked that he add some soda water to the xxxxxxxxxxx as it was made with just water and had no fizz at which time associate stated that it did look like he had only pushed one button and that he may not have known how to make a press.  Bartender 1 rolled his eyes and rudely said to associate that he knew how to make a press.  He then dumped the drink and made a fresh one, but clearly only put sprite in the glass, delivered the drink, made no move to the POS or a comp tab and walked away without a word.  Agent found him quite abrasive.

Later in the evaluation, agent, associate and the 3rd party were chatting about different liquors and specifically over 100 proof items.  We were all agreeing that in certain bars it is not a good idea to have Wild Turkey 101 and Bacardi 151 because of the way people have a tendency to become belligerent when they drink them. 

Bartender 1 jumped into the conversation saying that he totally disagreed and that he was going to prove us wrong to which agent asked how.  He proceeded to get a bottle of “Dirty Bird” he called it, from the dog pound, pour us 3 shots with a laugh and put the bottle away.  He said that he bet we wouldn’t turn into assholes at all.

Later in the evaluation agent asked bartender 1 about the men smoking at the bar to which he said, “as long as you promise to pay the entire fine, including the bar’s fine, you can do whatever you want.” 

He went on to say that they were rich guys that came in all the time and who was he to tell them no.  Agent asked “So I can light up right here if I want?” and bartender 1 replied, “I doubt you could afford it.”  As aforementioned, agent was appalled at this situation and the total disregard by the bartenders.

Throughout the evaluation, all from bartender 2, we ordered 2 more x xx beyond the initial free one, one more xxxxxxxxxxx (which was made with water again) and 4 xxxxxxxxxx for the 3 of us together at the bar. 

The 3rd party agent and associate were with paid for a round of 3 Orange Blossom Beers which was $21 + $5 tip. 

When agent asked for the tab and a bottled water from bartender 2 he said that we didn’t have a tab because he bought the 1st beer and agent’s xxxxxxxxx and that the other guest paid for the 3 more xxxxxx.  Agent said that we had had more than that plus the water and he smiled saying he did not know what I was talking about. 

Agent gave him $20 and said thank you and he put it directly in his pocket, not the tip jar, and left the bar area with a cigarette in his hand.

This means that in addition to the $22.75 discount that the server gave us for no cause of our doing we received 2 xxx beers, 1 xxxx drink, 1 xxxxx Manhattan and 1 xxxxxx for free. All this given to a complete stranger, let alone a trained bartender theft integrity spotter.

That is about $65.75 loss in sales.  Not to mention the 3 shots that we did not order, the 3 food items that were ordered wrong by bartender 2 that other guests ended up eating and the over pours, none of which agent observed being accounted for in any way.

Addendum:

Agent and associate both agreed that it appeared that bartender 2 was on some sort of stimulant drug which we both surmised to be cocaine or methamphetamine. This obviously cannot be substantiated without testing; however, this Agent strongly suspects it.

He did not blink and he bugged his eyes out when speaking, his movements were exaggerated and extremely fast yet clumsy, he spoke quite loud and fast,  he had a difficult time finishing a thought before derailing to another, he was constantly fidgeting with something including sticking his hands in the front and back of the waistband of his pants, etc.

This is an ADLLC Violation.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

24. For a licensee or employee to permit the unlawful possession, use, sale or offer for sale of narcotics, dangerous drugs or marijuana on the premises.

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


Defense Attorneys Win Dram Shop Case

June 30, 2011 19:52 by administrator

Defense Attorneys win dram shop case because their client had proper safe guards in place and a good system of care for alcohol service. This verdict specifically exemplifies the need for good alcohol servicng policies and procedures. If they DID'T have this in place, then they most likely would have suffered $5,000,000.00 in damages (see red below).

DRAM SHOP NON-AWARD:

Hartline Dacus Attorneys Win Defense Verdict for Adult Entertainment Company

This jury trial ended in victory for the Defendant after attorneys of the firm successfully defended a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment in a case involving an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man.

Dallas, TX (PRWEB) June 30, 2011

Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP today announced a jury trial victory after attorneys Darrell Barger, Brian Rawson and Stephanie Roark successfully defended their client in a two week Dram Shop liability trial in Harris County, Texas. The client is a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment with nightclubs in major markets across the U.S. According to court documents, the case involved an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man in 2007. The driver of the vehicle was an adult entertainer, who was driving home from work at the defendant’s nightclub when the accident occurred. She had a blood-alcohol level almost four times the legal limit, and eventually pled guilty to felony intoxication manslaughter. Relatives of the victim filed suit against the nightclub, alleging the defendant was negligent in continuing to serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, and then allowing her to drive home from the defendant’s establishment.

“While we certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for the family of the victim in this tragic accident, we were confident that our client had not been negligent in this situation. We knew we needed to mount a strong defense to prove that the company played no part in the criminal actions of this independent contractor,” said Darrell Barger, a partner in the Corpus Christi office of Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP.  The jury heard testimony from a variety of expert witnesses and was presented with a reconstruction of the accident. The plaintiff’s counsel claimed the victim experienced unimaginable conscious pain and suffering when he was struck by the entertainer’s vehicle and asked the jury to award $5 million plus punitive damages to the family of the victim.

Defense counsel argued that their client had safeguards in place to prevent serving alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated, as well as to prevent their patrons from driving under the influence of alcohol. The defense also brought in expert witness to establish that alcohol played no role in the accident. After hearing testimony from both sides, the Harris County jury of seven men and five women deliberated and returned a verdict for the defense on June 15, 2011.

SOURCE: Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP

Cause Number: 2009-07180
Court: 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas


BARTENDER THEFT - Not ringing in drinks, stolen money put in the tips jar, illegal amout of alcohol served, dram shop issues.

April 26, 2011 01:41 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1:  Female, 5’4”, Caucasian, in her thirties, with a medium build and long, straight blond hair.  She wore jeans and a baggy blue hooded sweatshirt.
  • Bartender 2:  Male, 5’7”, Caucasian, in his early twenties, with an average build and shaggy brown hair worn under a knit cap.  He wore a tee shirt.  The receipt he provided at the end of the visit gave his name as Xxxxx; patrons referred to him as Xxxxx.
  • Barback (?):  Male, 5’7”, Caucasian, in his twenties, with tattoos and spacers of approximately 5/8”-gauge in his ears.  The agent could not determine whether he was an on-duty employee, off-duty employee, or just a friend of the staff.

The agent and his associate approached the bar after first being seated at a table for more than five minutes and not being acknowledged.  They observed Xxxxx moving out from behind the bar to quickly greet another group of patrons seated at a nearby table, shortly after the group arrived.

Bartender 1 was behind the bar when the agent and his associate arrived.  Upon approaching the bar, Xxxxx greeted the agent and his associate within several minutes.  He gave a brief hello and offered to get them something to drink.  He took one order at a time and immediately filled it, delivering each item atop a cocktail napkin.  He did not discuss payment or a tab and did not introduce himself.  He also did not mention food until several minutes later when he delivered several menus, “In case you guys are hungry.”  He did not mention any specials or make any recommendations.

Xxxxx appeared to ring in the round immediately.  He did not place a printed tab in front of the agent.

Neither bartender followed up over the next twenty-plus minutes.  Bartender 1 did not even acknowledge the agent or his associate, despite passing in front of them multiple times.  Only after the agent summoned her did Bartender 1 ask if she could get them something.

Bartender 1 accepted the food order and offered upsell options, writing the order down on a cocktail napkin.  She gave no predrops of napkins, plates, or condiments.

The appetizers arrived first, after approximately fifteen minutes.  Xxxxx delivered napkins, silverware, and a mismatched set of salt and pepper shakers after delivering the appetizer.  He stated the entrees would follow quickly.

Neither bartender followed up to check on the appetizers.  The entrees were delivered ten minutes later.

The agent believes Barback was an off-duty employee.  Several times, he returned stacks of dirty glassware to the bar, joking that he was barbacking.  He spent a lot of the visit standing at the end of the bar, drinking and talking with the bartenders. 

Xxxxx prepared most of the items for the service bar, as he went out from behind the bar to wait on guests.  The agent could not verify whether all items were accounted, as Xxxxx often served multiple groups before moving to the register to ring in items, and did not print out tabs when updating. 

Agent stresses to management that this is a very dangerous bartending practice that should be addressed immediately.

Xxxxx used a free-pour technique.  His single-liquor cocktails were typically over poured at two ounces. This exceeds the amount designated by management. It also is too strong of a pour and endangers guests and ownership.

Neither bartender gave the agent and his associate much attention.  They, as well as other bar guests, often sat with near-empty and empty glasses for five or ten minutes before Xxxxx came by to offer an additional round. It was rather disconcerting to watch how seemingly disinterested they were.

Both bartenders kept up with washing and restocking glassware.

Bartender 1 did not interact further with the agent and his associate, and it soon became clear she was trying to leave for the evening.  At 6:52pm, she appeared to be reconciling the drawer from a report generated by the register. 

She took $80 in twenties from the till and put it in the tip jar. 

While in the midst of dealing with the report, at 6:54pm, Bartender 1 poured a whopping and illegal four-ounce shot of black label Captain Morgan and delivered it to a patron at the end of the bar closest to the entrance. 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

She accepted what appeared to be a five dollar bill and a one dollar bill and placed it to the right of the drawer; she did not ring in anything.  The cash remained there for at least five minutes.  The agent observed Bartender 1 ultimately put the cash in the tip jar.

Bartender 1 did a lot of cash exchanging and handling of the drawer, most of which the agent could not substantiate.  He thought it odd, however, that it appeared her accounting and that of Xxxxx’s was mixed in the same drawer.  For a shift change, it is typically cleaner and more difficult to mask theft if shifts keep separate tills. This behavior was highly suspicious.

When finished, Bartender 1 dumped the contents of the tip jar into her purse, which stood open on the back bar, to the left and a short distance from the register.

Bartender 1 then stood at the end of the bar for a time, rolling silverware and chatting with Barback.  Xxxxx was then solo behind the bar.

Two female patrons were at the bar and appeared to be friends of Xxxxx’s.  From conversation overheard, they were bartenders, possibly at a nearby establishment named Milagros.  Xxxxx prepared huge shots for them that filled highball glasses; one round was delivered at 6:55pm.  He did not ring in the round.

Xxxxx gave them another round of colossal shots at 7:31pm; again, he did not ring them in. 

Xxxxx chatted with them extensively and nearly completely ignored the rest of the bar guests.  The agent and his associate intended on ordering dessert, but gave up after twenty minutes, it becoming obvious that Xxxxx had no intention on serving them further.  He never removed their plates and did not offer boxes. It was pitiful service.

Around 7:45pm Xxxxx took one of the shots delivered to the bartenders, as they had yet to drink it, and mixed the contents with additional alcohol to create two new shots—also huge—which were also not rung in.

A male friend of the two patrons entered shortly before 8pm.  At 7:54pm, Xxxxx prepared a large whisky bomber for the patron and did not ring it in or accept payment.

When the female patrons and their friend departed, they left one twenty-dollar bill and two tens for the tab that Xxxxx had provided them.  The agent was not able to see the total on the tab, but is certain the group was not charged for most of their items; also, the receipt was less than five inches long—not enough to have printed out many items.  The pair each had at least one food order—both appeared to have the bruschetta from the special menu—and they took a food order to go, as well.  The agent suspects they were charged only for their food.

When the agent requested his tab, Xxxxx quickly processed the payment and returned the itemization with the agent’s credit card and two credit slips, in a check presenter with a pen. 

He did not require identification for the agent’s unsigned card.

Xxxxx placed the check presenter in front of the agent without saying anything and walked away. 

Xxxxx did not acknowledge the agent or his associate when they departed and never thanked them.

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
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