Bartender Summary

At the start of the evaluation period, there were two bartenders and one person the agent believed to be a bar back. At Approx 9:57pm a third bartender signed in.

Bartender 1: Xxxxxxxx male with a stocky build and brown long hair that he wore pulled into a pony tail. He had a sleeve tattoo on his right arm.

Bartender 2: Xxxxxxxx male with a muscular build and a thick beard.

Bartender 3: Xxxxxxxx female with a slender physique and brown hair that she wore pulled up.

Bar back: Young Xxxxxxxx male with a slender build. He was dressed in all black. He had brown hair styled in no particular pattern.

The agent was seated at the bar and immediately approached by bartender 1. The bartender did not introduce himself, but placed two menus on the bar top and asked how the agent and associate were doing. The bartender seemed knowledgeable regarding the drink menu, but unwilling to give suggestions about food (see food and beverage summery for details).

The bartender seemed impersonal and not overtly friendly to the agent.

He made the agent’s drinks and presented the drink on a cocktail napkin with proper garnish. He went on to ask the agent for payment, and took a credit card to secure a tab.

The bartender did not promote any other drinks, other than the Moscow Mule. He also failed to ask for an alcohol preference or up sell the drink in any way (see food and beverage summery for details).

The bartender was not accessible throughout the evaluation. He was generally talking/conversing with staff members or with an attractive blond patron at the end of the bar.

At 9:40pm bartender 1 made some shots for the aforementioned blond patron and her friends. He served the shots and then pulled one back for himself. He then crouched down behind the bar and drank the shot himself. He got up and proceeded to chat with the blond and her party.

This is an Arizona Department of liquor License Control ADLLC violation. If this Eye Spy agent would have been an ADLLC Agent, this establishment would have been levied a heavy fine.

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.

The bartender did not ring in the drinks immediately. Some time later, he went to the POS and may have rung in the shots; however, agent cannot verify this and relies on the general assumption they were given away.

Agent cannot substantiate a bar theft issue, because of the layout of the POS and facility, but highly suspects it had happened.

The agent’s receipt reflected all of the items ordered, however the agent believes the bartender may not always be ringing in drinks immediately after service (please see food and beverage summary for details).

Bartenders 2 and 3 were generally seen at the other end of the bar chatting with each other until the traffic picked up around 10:00. After that point, they got to work and didn’t chat very much.

The agent had no direct contact with any other employee behind the bar.

The drink quality of drinks varied from drink to drink. The agent also noticed that no bartender was using the same pouring count and liquor pour measurements varied widely.

The bar back didn’t seem to be authorized to make drinks. He did not carry himself like the three others behind the bar. He seemed a little less confident and more focused on clearing up used glassware and dishes.

The agent did see him serve two beers out of the refrigerator at 9:55pm and ring it into the POS in the middle of the bar.

Food and Beverage Summary 

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

Notes from Bartender Summery:

The agent asked bartender 1 what was good to eat. The bartender responded, “I don’t know, it’s all good.” The agent persisted and the bartender finally replied, “I really like it all.”  The agent believes the bartender could have provided at least one suggestion, even if he really didn’t care. The answer was so generic it was taken as a such.

The agent went on to ask the bartender what he thought of the drink “Air Mail.” The bartender responded, “I personally think it isn’t really good. It tastes just like champagne.  I guess it’s okay if you like champagne.” He then proceeded to talk the agent out of ordering from the drink menu and suggested a Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx.                                                                                    

The bartender did not up sell the Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx. He poured well vodka. When asked what the well vodka was, the bartender said that the establishment didn’t carry a well vodka and that he was using Sky 99. The bartender rang in a “specialty cocktail” for $11.

At the end of the evaluation, the agent asked to close the tab. The bartender went to the POS and took a second to review the tab. He then turned to the agent and asked, “you had 2 Xxxxxxxxs right?”  The agent responded that he had 3 in total. The bartender punched in an additional drink and then processed the agent’s payment.

Agent would like to stress the importance of ringing drinks into the POS as soon as they are made. This is a case point of how liquor can go un-accounted for whether by mistake or intentionally by theft. Delayed rings and grouping of drink orders is many times how bartenders mask bar theft and Agent would highly suggest that management instruct the bar staff of this and hold them accountable when they fail to immediately ring in drinks. Future spotter reports can verify if this is being done.

This Agent recommends different placement of the POS system as well. 

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary

• Bartender 1 - Xxxxx:  Tall Caucasian male with dark brown long, spiky hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.

• Bartender 2:  Caucasian male with longer shaggy blonde hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.

• Bartender 3:  Tan skinned (possibly Mediterranean or Hispanic) male with dark brown, short spiky hair and short facial hair around the chin.  He wore a black shirt, partially opened in the front, with a necklace.

• Bartender 4:  Tan skinned (possibly Mediterranean or Hispanic) male with short spiky brown hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.

• Bartender 5:  Caucasian female with tan skin and dark brown hair pulled back in a ponytail.  She wore a black skirt and top.

The agent and associate approached the bar and were greeted by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx offered the agent and associate a beverage and took the order.  Before preparing the beverages or entering the order into the POS, Xxxxx took another order from a customer standing a few feet over, and prepared the beverages all at once – grouping the drink orders together.  Upon delivery, he quoted each party a price.  The agent presented a credit card and Xxxxx took the card to hold the tab. 

The agent would suggest that management highly discourage grouping orders as such, as beverages can be mistakenly forgotten or this process can effectively be used to mask bartender theft issues.

Xxxxx worked quickly as a bartender, but frequently grouped his orders.  Because of this “grouping” of orders, Agent cannot fully substantiate theft/integrity issues with this individual process; however, it is highly likely and very much suspected.

His pouring style was consistent, as he used a 4 count pour (4 count = 1 ½ oz) for virtually all beverages observed.

Xxxxx did not attempt to upsell on liquor when the opportunity presented itself, consistently deferring to the house brands for mixed beverages. 

Furthermore, Xxxxx was not diligent about entering beverage orders into the POS following service.

At approximately 11:53 pm, Xxxxx was observed serving a beverage to a customer and did not ring an order into the POS at that time. Agent classifies this as a theft occurrence.

This was not uncommon amongst the bartenders.  Nor were other types of misconduct.

At approximately 11:45 pm, Bartender 2 was observed pouring a 6 count of liquor into a beverage.  The agent could not confirm whether the beverage was charged as a double.

At approximately 11:49 pm, Bartender 4 served a customer and did not enter the order into the POS.

At approximately 12:02 pm, Bartender 3 was observed giving two females a hug across the bar.  He then served them two free shots and did not charge them. 

The same bartender later followed up with two additional shots at 12:04.  Again, he did not charge either for the shots.

In addition to serving beverages for which were unaccounted, the bartenders also were observed serving themselves alcohol.

Shortly after the two females were served free shots, Bartender 2 was observed quickly pouring himself a portion from one of the clear liquor bottles and quickly drinking it himself. This is an ADLLC violation. The liquor was also not accounted for and therefore a theft issue as well.

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.

Later, at approximately 12:24 am, Bartender 3 was observed pouring a beverage for a customer.  He surreptitiously placed an empty rocks glass next to the concoction and poured a long pull of about two full finger lengths of straight vodka before putting the bottle away.  He then proceeded to hide the glass behind the shaker set up, apparently so that customers could not directly see the glass of alcohol, and left it there as he served the original concoction to the customer. 

Some time later, he conveniently came back to retrieve the glass, apparently thinking that sufficient time had elapsed and the drink therefore would not be suspected by guests of being liquor, and brought it to the opposite side of the bar.  The agent was unable to observe what became of the vodka as he was conveniently obscured, but Bartender 3 was undoubtedly hiding the drink from onlookers, as it was poured discreetly and carefully hidden. This liquor was not accounted for and therefore is also considered a theft occurrence.

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.

At approximately 12:45 am, Bartender 4 was observed serving a customer and did not enter an order into the POS. 

At nearly the same time, Bartender 3 was again seen delivering free shots, without charging.

The agent had difficulty observing Bartender 5 due to the positioning of the crowd and the structure of the room.  She appeared to be pouring beverages consistently, and no integrity issues were noted; however, it is necessary to point out that this evaluation was based on limited exposure.

The agent also observed Bartender 4 constantly checking his cell phone, which he kept hidden on the back bar near the VIP ledge.

Overall, the conduct of the bartenders during this observation was rather unprofessional and irresponsible.  The agent observed free beverages being given away, grouped orders, and over-pouring.  Furthermore, the agent observed at least one bartender consuming alcohol, and another that at the very least intended to.  Irresponsible liquor service and a lack of diligent work ethic is an easy way put a liquor license in jeopardy.

The presumable MOD, a short Mediterranean male dressed in a suit, spent most of his time observing from the steps to the VIP section.  He was observed behind the bar on several occasions, giving the bartender hugs and fraternizing.  The agent found it surprising that he would not catch on to what was occurring.

When the agent was ready for the check, Xxxxx promptly presented an itemized copy of the receipt along with the agent’s card.  The receipt was relatively correct, although there was one possible manipulation (see the Beverage Addendum).                      

Addendum

The agent decided to order a double gin and tonic to test the bartenders pouring skills.  Xxxxx poured the beverage using about a 7 count pour.  The beverage was stiff, and appropriately balanced for a double.  On the itemized copy of the receipt, the agent was shockingly only charged a single dollar for the double, as it appeared on the bill as “$$ rocks.”  Again, Agent found this highly surprising to have 1 nearly 1 ¼ oz of liquor for a dollar.  The agent does not know the establishment’s policy on double drinks, but would assume that a double would be twice the price, or at least more than $1.                             

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Bartender Summary:

1.      Bartender 1:  Caucasian female, short dark hair, tattoos on arms

2.      Bartender 2:  Caucasian male, short hair, glasses

The agent approached the bar top and was greeted by Bartender 1 within one minute.  Bartender 1 was not friendly, did not smile, and asked the agent and associate what we would like to drink in a very hurried manner.  The agent and associate ordered two drinks and Bartender 1 quickly fulfilled the drink order and then stated the amount owed by memory.  The agent provided Bartender 1 with a cash bill, and Bartender 1 moved to the cash register and was seen entering in the amount stated and then Bartender 1 returned back to the agent with the correct amount of change.  Each interaction with Bartender 1 went similarly, and each time she seemed less and less friendly. 

Each time, Bartender 1 did record the transactions into the cash register.  Two drinks were ordered through Bartender 2, and he was quiet but seemed friendlier than Bartender 1.  Bartender 2 handled the transactions similar to Bartender 1, in that he would deliver the drinks; verbally state the amount owed, and then register the cash provided into the cash register. 

The agent did observe a few questionable interactions with patrons that the bartenders apparently knew on a personal level. 

·        At 11:35pm the agent observed two male patrons at the bar top get served two beers by Bartender 1, and the agent did not see Bartender 1 collect any cash from these patrons.  Bartender 1 communicated with these patrons on a very familiar level and seemed to know them on a personal basis.  No transaction was made.

·        Another group of patrons, a larger group of six or more people, appeared to be well known by both bartenders.  The agent observed multiple instances in which this group of patrons was served drinks but the agent did not observe these drinks recorded into the cash register.  Moreover, the agent did notice rather large tips being provided to the bartenders from this group of patrons – just not register transactions. 

This same large group of patrons caused quite a spectacle within the establishment, as they were extremely intoxicated. 

At one point, a male patron from that group removed his shirt and proceeded to dance around the establishment, finally ending up rolling around shirtless on one of the pool tables.  This male patron continued to be served alcohol, and was seen posing for pictures with many of his friends. 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

Bartender 2 was observed smoking cigarettes outside the front entrance on a few occasions, and he was not seen washing his hands after smoking at any time.    

Michael Zenner - CEO  
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010