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

BARTENDER THEFT:Free Drinks, Stolen money into tip jar, Service to Minors

March 11, 2014 23:22 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:Free Drinks, Stolen money into tip jar, Service to Minors


Bartender Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

  • BAR 1/XXXXX – Caucasian male with short, dark hair. Tattoos on forearms. Observed wearing a yellow ASU t-shirt and grey pants. Overheard saying to a guest his name was XXXXX.

  • BAR 2 – Caucasian male with black hair and a patch of red hair on the top. Observed wearing a black work t-shirt over a grey long sleeve shirt.

Upon sitting down we were quickly approached and greeted by BAR 1/XXXXX. He took our drink order and then made it at a 4 pour count (~1.5 ounces). He placed the drinks in front of us and secured our tab with a credit card (See Food & Beverage Summary for details).

No napkins were given and it appeared that the majority of patrons sitting at the bar did not have napkins either.

XXXXX and BAR 2 appeared to be working together throughout the evening to take care of any and all of the guests at the bar. They seemed to be sociable with one another and worked well as a team.

XXXXX and BAR 2 were on several occasions observed cleaning the bar; mopping the floor and wiping down the bar top. The Agent found this to be an excellent display with respect to maintaining a clean atmosphere and work environment.

XXXXX was observed pouring numerous liquor based drinks for guests. During these observations he was consistent in his pour (4 count ~ 1.5 ounces), not a 3 count pour (~1.25 ounces). XXXXX appeared to be very knowledgeable about drink mixes, as several different/atypical drinks were ordered by various guests throughout the evaluation.

Upon closing out our tab, XXXXX presented the Agent’s credit card and two credit card slips on the bar top with a pen. No itemized check was given.

Upon our departure XXXXX was observed to wish us a friendly/polite good night.

Several questionable instances were observed while sitting at the bar:

At approximately 11:38 PM, XXXXX had appeared to have lost a guests credit card and spent several minutes looking for it. Upon finding it, XXXXX gave this guest, his two friends, and two other guests a round of shots that he said were on him for the inconvenience of waiting. XXXXX prepared and served these shots but never made a move towards the computer screen to ring these in. Agent scores this as a theft occurrence as he did not record these drinks. This is also an ADLLC Violation as employees are not allowed do give away alcohol. Only owner/managers  or on a managers command.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-242. Sale of liquor on credit prohibited; exceptions

It is unlawful for a licensee, or an employee or agent of a licensee, to sell or offer to sell, directly or indirectly, or to sanction the sale on credit of spirituous liquor, or to give, lend or advance money or anything of value for the purpose of purchasing or bartering for spirituous liquor, except that sales of spirituous liquor consumed on the licensed premises may be included on bills rendered to registered guests in hotels and motels, and spirituous liquor sales for on or off premises consumption may be made with credit cards approved by the director, and sales of spirituous liquor consumed on the premises of private clubs may be included on bills rendered to bona fide members.

At approximately 11:49 PM, XXXXX was observed preparing three vodka and energy drinks (energy drinks being the assumption as it came from the soda gun and not a can and was gold in color). XXXXX prepared these drinks at an over pour of about a 5/6 count pour and made them in clear plastic Solo cups. Upon serving these girls their drinks they went out the front door and were no longer observed. The Agent was unable to determine if they had departed from the establishment or gone to some area of the patio where they could not be observed. These three girls were not seen again in the establishment throughout the remainder of the evaluation.

At approximately 11:54 PM, XXXXX was observed checking his cell phone, which was placed near his computer terminal. Cell phones should not be observed by the guests, XXXXX should have gone somewhere in the back of the establishment to use his phone. Moreover, cell phones are the new abacus system in which bartenders track stolen money. Agent isn't inferring this, just bringing it to management attention.

At approximately 11:57 PM, BAR 2 was observed to give two guests a round of Three Olives Cola shots. They had asked for a taste, but received almost two full shot glasses of this liquor. BAR 2 did not make a move towards either computer screen to ring these drinks up under a comp sheet.

At approximately 12:03 AM, a group of individuals who appeared to be in their late teens early 20’s were observed to sit down at the bar. XXXXX appeared to know at least one or two of them based on their greeting exchange. He did not appear to know all of them as they were observed to be introduced to him at this time. Although the true age of these individuals was unknown, no attempts at identifying their ages had been observed. The Agent would have without a doubt carded these individuals as they looked extremely young, and this bar is in close proximity to a college campus.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-241. Selling or giving liquor to underage person; illegally obtaining liquor by underage person; violation; classification

A. A licensee, an employee or any other person who questions or has reason to question whether or not a person ordering, purchasing, attempting to purchase or otherwise procuring or attempting to procure the serving or delivery of spirituous liquor is under the legal drinking age shall require the person to exhibit a written instrument of identification and may require the person on a card to be retained by the licensee to sign the person's name, the date, and the number of such identification. An off-sale retail licensee or employee of an off-sale retail licensee shall require an instrument of identification from any customer who appears to be under twenty-seven years of age and who is using a drive-through or other physical feature of the licensed premises that allows a customer to purchase spirituous liquor without leaving the customer's vehicle. The following written instruments are the only acceptable types of identification:

At approximately 12:06 AM, XXXXX was observed pouring two Jack and Cokes for a guest. XXXXX took the money for these drinks but then without ringing anything in, placed the money he received for these drinks on top of the cash register, not in the drawer. The money did not go into any tip jar and the Agent did not understand why the money would not then go into the cash drawer. The money remained singled out, sitting on top of the cash register for 15 minutes and then was opbserved to be dropped into the tip jar.

At approximately 12:08 AM, XXXXX was observed to make four shots of a deep blue colored liquor (presumably Blue Curacao). He then poured a little from each of them to make a fifth. These five drinks were served to a group of people playing beer pong next to the bar. No move was made towards the computer to ring these drinks up.

At approximately 12:09 AM, XXXXX was observed to pour a drink of well tequila and a yellow liquid (presumably a sour mix or a citrus mix). The drink was given to a female customer. No move was made towards the computer to ring these drinks up.

At approximately 12:11 AM, XXXXX was observed to pour two draft beers for a guest described as a Caucasian male with a red and black flannel print shirt. XXXXX then poured a third draft beer for this individual who then relocated to resume playing beer pong. No move was made towards the computer to ring these drinks up.

 

Food and Beverage Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Upon our arrival there was no one standing at the downstairs podium to this establishment. However, upon reaching the top of the escalator SERVER 1/XXXXX was observed standing waiting for customers. She greeted us very warmly and walked with us inside. As we walked she rattled off some of the features that were offered that evening, namely beer pong. Furthermore she talked briefly about the menu, stating that this establishment had good food especially the Chicken Parmesan Sliders. There was another female server, however it had appeared she was cut for the evening and about to leave.

XXXXX sat us in the main dining room area and asked us what we wanted to drink. Several items had been attempted to be ordered but the establishment was out of them, initially the Sonoran White Chocolate Ale which the Agent tried to order. XXXXX knew they were out of this and was very polite. A Four Peaks Kiltlifter was instead ordered by the Agent and delivered to the table as a 20 ounce beer, no size was specified when placing the order. The Associate tried to order a Guinness draft, which  they were out of, then tried to order a Newcastle, which they were also out of. BAR 1/XXXXX came over and sat down at our table and had a better idea of what this establishment had or didn’t have and a Blue Moon Winter Ale was suggested and then ordered, which also came to the table in a 20 ounce glass. Both drinks were served in clean, chip free glassware, both were chilled to the right temperature.

At approximately 10:23 PM, the food items were ordered; initially a New York Style Pretzel was placed, but politely shot down by XXXXX as they were out of this item as well. Wisconsin White Cheese Curds were then suggested and then ordered. The Chicken Parmesan sliders and the Buffalo Chicken wrap were ordered as entrees at the same time the appetizer was placed. The Agent, at the time, found that XXXXX did not write down any of the items ordered but repeated them back to us and clarified sides being ordered.

At 10:31 PM, the Cheese curds arrived, they were served with a side of Ancho Chili Ranch Dressing that complemented the perfectly fried cheese curds. Overall this item was very tasty, appropriately priced as well as portioned, and a good start to a meal.

At 10:47 PM, XXXXX stopped by to check on us and grabbed our finished appetizer plate.

At 10:50 PM, XXXXX delivered the entrees to the table. The Chicken Parmesan Sliders were aesthetically displayed on the platter in between a modest portion of sweet potato fries. They were presumably finished in the oven or Salamander as the cheese on top was nicely melted into the marinara sauce. The sweet potato fries were cooked to a golden brown and were an excellent accompaniment to the small sandwiches. The Associates Buffalo Chicken Wrap was ordered with coleslaw, however fries were delivered on the plate. XXXXX was quickly made aware of this, apologized, and returned from the kitchen with coleslaw but also left he fries on the table incase we wanted them. It is presumed that XXXXX had this item comped as neither the fries nor the coleslaw were itemized on the bill. According to the Associate the Buffalo Chicken Wrap and coleslaw were both delicious. Our beer glasses were near empty and another round of drinks were offered and ordered at this time.

At 10:57 PM, XXXXX dropped our 2nd round of beers; 1 Kiltlifter and 1 Blue Moon Winter Ale. Both drinks were served in clean, chip free glassware, both were chilled to the right temperature. The restaurant appeared to mostly clear by this time, and XXXXX had asked us if it would be ok if she played a quick round of beer pong with other guests, which we were ok with. It appeared as though all of her side work was done and no guests were in need of her services. Furthermore, the Agent felt this was a nice gesture to not only us by asking, but that she went above her expected work duties to engage other patrons in playing this game. While XXXXX was playing this game she was not observed to consume any alcoholic beverages, although she was playing with guests who were drinking.

At 11:16 PM, we had finished with our plates of food. Empty plates and glassware were cleared and XXXXX was observed to ask us if we wanted/needed anything else. We said no to anything else and she quickly returned with a correctly itemized bill. The bill was closed out shortly after the Agent placed a credit card in the check presenter.

At 11:33 PM, Upon departure from the table XXXXX was observed to thank us at this time for coming in. As we walked out the front door she also said goodbye.

The Agent and Associate stood outside for a minute or two before returning inside to now sit at the bar. This gesture was done to not raise suspicion of our evaluation purposes in an establishment with such an open floor plan.

At 11:35 PM, we sat down at the bar. Within moments, XXXXX was observed to greet us and take our drink order. A Jack and Coke and a vodka tonic were ordered. XXXXX did not ask for preference, but made both of these drinks in tall glasses. A 4 count pour (~1.5 ounces) of liquor was observed as he made both of these drinks. He quoted the well vodka at $2 and the Jack Daniels at $4. When the bill later arrived this quote was accurate with what we paid.

For discretionary reasons in the Bartender Summary to this report, this section stated that at 11:38 PM, two guests were given Kamikaze shots. The Agent and Associate were these two guests.

For discretionary reasons in the Bartender Summary to this report, this section stated that at 11:57 PM, two guests were each given a Three Olives Cola shot by BAR 2. The Agent and Associate were these two guests.

At 12:17 AM, We departed from the establishment. Upon our departure XXXXX wished us a polite good night.

Of note: Three beers and one food item were selected that were out of stock. It is understandable that after St. Patty’s Day and during ASU’s spring break that items that would normally be stocked would be depleted or absent. Aside from these mitigating circumstances, four randomly selected items is a bit excessive and compromises the Agent’s belief that should they ever return to this establishment or tell friends to go here that things won’t be missing from the food and drink menus again.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Palming Stolen Money, Stolen Money to Tip Jar, Underage Drinking, Dram Shop Concerns

March 3, 2014 18:35 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Palming Stolen Money, Stolen Money to Tip Jar, Underage Drinking, Dram Shop Concerns

 

Bartender Summary

The agent observed the following bartenders the evening of June 30th:

-Indoor Bar

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

                                      

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

-Near Bar

·       Bartender 3: Caucasian male, 6’1”, medium build, short spiked brown hair  

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



The agent initially approached the nearer of the two outdoor  bars at 7:17.  At that time, all three bartenders were doing their best to keep up with the demand, but from the moment the agent walked in, it was obvious that they were beyond the limit of how much business they could keep up with.  And while both of them were working gamely to do all that they could, it was six minutes before one of them was able to get to a given guest after her arrival.

This was not an isolated incident either, as the experience was typical of the average guest.  Even so, after initially speaking to the agent at 17:23, Bartender 3 was able to present the ordered beverage a mere two minutes later.  Though  it  is worth noting that no beverage napkins were used by either bartender at any point.  Of some additional concern, the agent noted that the bartender never actually rang the order in.  Rather, he approached the POS, and registered a flurry of screen touches that ultimately culminated in a “No sale” screen and the cash being split between the register and tip jar.  Again, this experience was sadly typical.  (see photo below from 8:20).

In addition to multiple “No sale” ring-ins, the agent also witnessed another common practice effective for hiding cash theft:  rather than create and close out each individual order, both Bartenders 3 and 4 had a tendency to leave a tab open at all times, which they would add drinks to and apply cash payments to repeatedly without closing out.  In addition to making the cash sales record a confused jumble, this also gives a readout less than a centimeter in size stating the change due back to the guest. Obviously, in a bar where the nearest guest is ten feet away, this is a serious problem.

Yet two additional methods of outright theft were observed.  At 8:07, Bartender 3 received a drink order and a stack of bills with a suggestion to “keep the change.”  Rather than ring the order in, Bartender 3 held onto it, palmed in one of his hands while going about stocking work, until he eventually dropped it directly in the tip jar.

Similarly, at 8:34, Bartender 4 poured two draft beers for a guest, quoted her a price of $10, then went to the POS, and rang it in for a single draft, pressing the cash button as quickly as possible so that the large “$5.00” display was visible for only a fraction of a second, and then dropped the remainder and tip in the tip jar.

Each of these theft methods relies on quoting a price, waiting for the guest to present cash, and then ringing in something unorthodox to disguise the theft of the overage.

One practice that would go a long way to eliminating these practices would be to insist that bartenders announce the price only after having rung in the items.  This would at least make the practices above more difficult, but the fact that bartenders feel free to just ring in “No sales” and drop in cash means that they are stealing with impunity.  A good way to address this problem would be to have surprise cash drawer changes at random and unannounced times, making it easy for management to prove that some bartenders have impossible overages.  Also, since theft was consistently observed only at the outdoor bars, this would be a way of extending management’s control over the satellite bars that seem to operate with a sense of impunity.

Given the profit motivation the bartenders displayed, it surprised the agent to never see either of them offer food to a guest or even try to upsell to a more expensive brand of liquor, easy ways to increase check and tip averages.

Also, paradoxically, the bartenders were very slow about offering additional drinks to those guests whose had gone empty.  Initially, they were very busy with guests, then with cleaning up and restocking, but after this period, they tended to wait around to be approached rather than offer new drinks to guests sitting there with empties.

The agent also never observed either bartender giving any guest a check for any cash order at any time.  They simply did not do it.  This was even true at the inside bar where rampant theft methods were not observed.

Additionally, other, numerous operating controls seemed to have broken down, especially the system for checking ID.  It is possible that the bartenders were under the impression that IDs were being checked at the door, because no bartender in the establishment or out was ever seen to ask for identification of any guest.  This is obviously a big enough risk for the establishment, but on top of that, much of the crowd that evening was young, including several people that were clearly under 30.  Additionally, by the end of the evening multiple guests made statements both to the bartenders and to fellow patrons to the effect of their being completely intoxicated.  Sure enough, both guests showed all the symptoms of visible intoxication, yet they continued to receive drinks from Bartenders 3 and 4.

Even more worryingly, at 9:27, the agent observed Xxxxx serving a Mojito and a Pomonat to two girls that appeared to the agent to be underage (pictured at left) .  What’s more, Xxxxx not only never carded them, he was also never seen to ring the drink in, meaning that he either delayed the ring-in considerably, or they were given away without being properly comped and accounted for. Agent never observed the drinks to be accounted for.

Obviously, it goes without saying that under New Jersey’s dram shop law, these are massive sources 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 the liability of the establishment, and can be recouped by litigation.  In fact, the law is so stringent, that even minors who have not been served on the premises, but have been seen to have been intoxicated on the premises and then go on to cause damages can be a source of liability for the establishment, as the establishment is legally obligated to stop the process.  This is why it is so essential that all guests be identified in terms of age upon entry to the establishment.  Of course, when it comes to intoxicated guests, the liability exists regardless of guests' minor status.

On the other hand, there were minimal problems with correct pouring controls at  both bars.  The only overpour was actually poured by a chef (see “Managers” section for details).

All bartenders appearance was always professional and hygienic, with no cause for concern with respect to their hand washing.  The agent did observe both outdoor bartenders and Xxxxx drinking from plastic cups though.

The outdoor bar farthest from the entrance was closed.

Manager Summary

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

·       Chef: Caucasian male, 6’0”, short light brown hair in a baseball cap, glasses, wearing a black chef’s uniform monogrammed with a name beginning “Sch”

For the most part, the agent only observed the Patio Manager.  He was generally busy and effective though.  He was first seen in conversation with the hostess outside the patio bar at 8:16, then was seen circulating around the patio, in one case talking to a guest.

Next, at several times between 8:50 and 9:28, he was seen preparing bar drinks and taking them outside, presumably to help the swamped bartenders.

The only negative finding about the Patio Manager is that he was just five feet away when Xxxxx was seen presenting the alcohol to the seemingly underage guests.

Finally, the Chef described above was briefly observed at 9:20 when he stepped behind the indoor bar, grabbed a goblet, poured himself an eight-count (>3 oz) of Grey Goose, emptied a can of Red Bull over it, and then walked back into the kitchen, taking a large gulp of the drink as he walked. It was not observed to be comped in the POS.

While the Patio Manager was doing a laudable job of assisting his staff, in the agent’s opinion, his time might have been better spent by inspiring a bit of fear of authority in his bar staff.

There were no guest problems at any point that required manager intervention.


Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Free Drinks, Employye Alcohol Consumption, ADLLC Violations

March 3, 2014 00:30 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Free Drinks, Employye Alcohol Consumption, ADLLC Violations

Bartender Summary                                                                                                    

·       Bartender 1:  Caucasian male, approximately 6’, athletic build, wearing a black uniform t-shirt, jeans, and a black hat.

·       Bartender 2:  Caucasian male, approximately 5’10, thin build, brown hair worn in a xxxxxx, wearing a black uniform t-shirt, and jeans.

·       Bartender 3:  Caucasian female, approximately 5’3, petite build, with long blonde hair, wearing a female style uniform t-shirt.

Throughout the evaluation Bartender 1, Bartender 2, and Bartender 3 were extremely distracted and barely interacted with those patrons seated at the bar.  Throughout the evaluation Bartender 1, Bartender 2, and Bartender 3 appeared to be more interested in each other, the serving staff, or their cell phones than they were the customers at the bar.  Only on few occasions did Bartender 3 appear to engage in conversation and flirtatious banter with some of the bar patrons.  Otherwise, Bartender 1, Bartender 2, and Bartender 3 were observed walking around the bar, fidgeting with glassware, bottles, or their cell phones.

The more extreme examples of this behavior include:

At 10:26pm Bartender 1 was texting or playing on his cell phone.  He was observed with his head down using his cell phone for over 3 minutes straight.  He glanced up a few times during this period but did not stop texting.

At 10:56pm Bartender 3 was observed using/texting on her cell phone for almost five minutes.  Bartender 3 was also looking down at her cell phone most of the time, glancing around a few times but not moving from the spot in which she stood.

Additionally observations include:

At 11:09pm Bartender 1 was observed aggressively smacking his mouth while chewing gum behind the bar.

At 11:31pm Bartender 1 used his mixing tin to scoop ice from the ice bin for beverages.  While pouring the ice into the glasses Bartender 1 placed his hand over the tin, preventing the ice from falling out and not landing in the glass, guiding the ice with his hand.  As a patron, the agent would have been bothered by this behavior, not wanting Bartender 1’s hands, which had notably not been washed or cleaned for most of the evaluation, all over the ice within the agent’s beverage. This is also an AZ Health Code Violation.

At 10:32pm the agent noted that Bartender 1 was drinking out of a plastic cup behind the bar.  The cup was closed with a lid and Bartender 1 used a straw as per liquor law and health code requirements.  However, the substance within the drink was a light color with a lemon inside the cup.  It is possible that the drink was just Iced Tea, however, the way Bartender 1 sipped the beverage over the course of the evaluation leads the agent to speculate that the beverage may not have been a non-alcoholic beverage and may have been alcohol. This is obviously speculation, but from his mannerisms, I'm fairly certain of it.  If so this is an ADLLC Violation.

At 11:54pm Bartender 3 was observed drinking a redbull directly out of the can, leaving the can by her register when she was not drinking it. ths iis an AZ Health Code Violation.

In addition several beverages were observed being served without being charged for as well as not being accounted for within the POS:

At around 10:20pm a local delivery man from a Mexican restaurant entered the establishment delivering food for Bartender 2.  The delivery was handed to Bartender 1 and then Bartender 2 came by to greet the delivery man.  While Bartender 1 was standing there talking to the delivery man Bartender 2 poured the delivery man two shots of jager in two separate shot glasses.  The delivery man drank one immediately, chatted with Bartender 1 and Bartender 2 for several minutes, took the second shot and left.  Neither of the shots were charged for nor recorded in the POS.

At 11:33pm Bartender 1 was observed serving two Vodka Redbulls to patrons standing at the bar.  These patrons appeared to know the MOD and the staff.  Neither drink was charged for nor accounted for in the POS.

 

Wait Staff Summary                                                                                                     

Server 1:  Named Xxxxx; Caucasian female, approximately 5’4, medium build, with dirty blonde/brown curly hair, wearing a black female uniform t-shirt, a black wool hat, and jeans.

Server 2:  Named Xxxxx; Caucasian female, approximately 5’3, petite build, with long blonde hair, wearing a uniform female t-shirt, and jeans.  Xxxxx was training that evening.

The agent and associate sat at a table and were approached by Xxxxx and Xxxxx after waiting several minutes.  Xxxxx placed beverage napkins onto the table and asked the agent and associate what they wanted to drink.  The agent and associate placed drink orders (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

Over the course of the evaluation only the associate was IDed however both the associate and the agent received alcoholic beverages (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

After viewing the menu the agent and associate placed a food order with Xxxxx and Xxxxx (Please see Food and Beverage for details).  The agent asked a question which neither Xxxxx nor Xxxxx knew the answer to (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

While the agent and associate ate the first course Xxxxx and Xxxxx checked in a few times. During one of these check-ins the associate ordered an additional beverage.  The agent is not sure how long it took for this beverage to be delivered, although it was at least five minutes.  Considering the low volume of business, the agent and associate felt that this wait time was not appropriate.

Regarding the second course the agent asked Xxxxx for something which was immediately provided, which the agent greatly appreciated (please see Food and Beverage for details).

Considering the low level of business again, the agent and associate felt that the wait time for the second course was also longer than appropriate (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

When the food was delivered the agent ordered an additional beverage through Xxxxx.  There was an issue with the beverage that was not Xxxxx’s fault, however, Xxxxx handled this issue very well (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

When the agent and associate were finished with their meal the agent requested the check.  The check was promptly provided and paid for.  There was no customer receipt included with the bill, however, and another item on the bill was very odd (Please see Food and Beverage for details).

As a training server it is expected that Xxxxx would be on her best behavior, which she was.  The agent and associate were surprised, however, at Xxxxx’s performance in comparison to Xxxxx’s, Xxxxx seeming to slack and be less helpful as well as be a bad role model and trainer for Xxxxx considering her lack of knowledge and lack of attention.

Xxxxx was a very friendly and attentive server, on the other hand.  However, throughout the meal the table was not maintained, leaving a clutter of dirty plates and glassware for almost the entire meal.

Security Summary

·       Security 1- Caucasian male, approximately 5’10, with an athletic build and dark short hair, wearing a black t-shirt and jeans.

When the agent and associate approached there was no Security stationed at the door nor did there appear to be security staff within the establishment.  Consequently, no patrons were being IDed upon entering, which, based on the assumption of staff assuming the patrons had been IDed, caused some patrons to not be IDed at all.

About half way through the evaluation there was a single security guard that was noted to have arrived and started working.

Security 1 was observed walking into the establishment only several times during the evaluation, spending most of his time at or near the front entrance.

On the agent and associate’s way out Security 1 wished the agent and associate a good evening.

Although it appeared that only staff and a few friends of staff walked through the back door of the establishment that went into the back parking lot, the agent warns that there was no staff member watching that entrance/exit throughout the evaluation.  The agent notes that this is an easy area for underage individuals to enter the establishment and be assumed as having been IDed by the servers and bartenders.

Overall, the agent is not sure whether or not the security staff was short just for that evening or if only one staff member was scheduled.  The agent also does not assume that Security 1 was necessarily late.  Nonetheless, the agent does warn that the establishment was not being watched over in the way security staff would and should, IDing all patrons at the door and watching all entrances.  Such responsibilities should be handled, therefore, by the rest of the staff watching for incoming patrons through the back entrance and IDing all patrons as they are served, however, this did not appear to be the case either, causing the establishment to have face the risk of serving underage and/or intoxicated patrons.

Food and Beverage Summary

When the agent and associate entered the establishment there was no security working at the door.  The agent and associate were, therefore, not IDed upon initial entry into the facility.

The agent and associate sat at a table and were greeted by Xxxxx and Xxxxx.  Xxxxx placed down beverage napkins and asked the agent and associate what they would like to drink.  The agent ordered a water and the associate ordered a corona.  At this point the associate was IDed, however, the agent was not due to the fact that the agent only ordered water.

In addition the agent asked Xxxxx if the agent and associate could have another menu since there was only one on the table.  Xxxxx did not appear to understand why the agent wanted another menu, and then assumed based on the disheveled appearance of the first menu, that the agent wanted a cleaner menu. Nonetheless, the agent wanted an additional menu for the associate to look at as well.

When Xxxxx returned with the corona the agent and associate ordered nachos as an appetizer and stated that they would continue to browse the menu to look for larger items.

Ten minutes later the nachos arrived, served in a large plastic basket on top of a wax sheet.  There was cheese sauce drizzled over the chips, a handful of sliced jalapenos, a handful of diced tomatoes, and a large dollop of sour cream.  The agent and associate were extremely disappointed with the nachos, however.  The nachos came out barely room temperature and it was obvious that the jalapenos and tomatoes had just been sprinkled onto the chips, instead of having some salsa or pico de gallo on the chips, giving the nachos a more complex flavor.  Instead the nachos were very basic and cold, both the agent and associate feeling they could make better nachos in their homes with basic ingredients.

When the agent was finished with his first beverage Xxxxx returned and asked if the agent and associate were interested in additional beverages.  The associate ordered another Corona.  The associate and agent were also ready to order their food at this point.

The agent asked Xxxxx what the “healthy heart special” was, which she did not know.  Xxxxx asked Xxxxx and Xxxxx was not aware either.  Xxxxx directed Xxxxx to ask the MOD who informed her that it was a pesto chicken meal.

When Xxxxx returned with the information the associate placed an order for the Social Burger with fries and the agent placed an order for the loaded grilled cheese with fries.

Nine minutes later the agent realized that the agent had forgotten to ask for the Grilled cheese without the pesto sauce.  The agent flagged down Xxxxx and apologized, informing her of the modification.  Xxxxx ran upstairs to inform that chef and quickly returned stating that the agent need not worry and that Xxxxx had caught the chef just in time.

16 minutes after the second course was ordered it was delivered by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx asked if the agent or associate needed anything else.  The agent asked for a coke.  Xxxxx left to retrieve the coke but shortly returned stating that the syrup was low and needed to be changed.  Xxxxx stated that the agent would receive her beverage as soon as the coke was changed.  Several minutes later the drink was delivered.

The agent’s food was very good.  The grilled cheese served on soft, thick bread, with hot, thick, gooey cheese in the center.  The fries were hot and crisp with a soft center.  Overall, the agent’s meal was very satisfying.

The associate’s meal was okay but not impressive.  Again the associate felt that the burger was comparable to a burger the associate would make for himself at home.  The meat was good, and cooked as per the associate’s request.  The bun was soft and warm.  There was nothing in particular that was wrong with the meal, however, there was nothing particularly noteworthy either.

When the agent and associate were finished with their meals the agent requested the check.  The bill was presented in a clean check presenter with seemingly accurate charges.  Upon closer examination the agent noted an odd discount on the bill that did not pertain to any problem the agent and associate had.

The agent provided a credit card for the bill, which Xxxxx promptly ran and returned.  At this point the bill was returned with a receipt to sign, however, without a customer copy.

Overall the agent thought that Xxxxx was working very hard to provide the best service with her level of training.  The food, however, was mostly disappointing and the kitchen appeared to be taking an inappropriate amount of time considering the low level of business.

 

Promotional Addendum:

During the evaluation there were three promotional models working to promote Bacardi.  The MOD made two separate mixtures with Bacardi; one with coke, and one with juices.  At this point the coke syrup was already low and, unaware of the issue, the MOD poured the shots with what tasted like watered down coke.  This was evident in the flavor of the shots provided by the models.

Due to the fact that the agent had not ordered an alcoholic beverage and, therefore, had not been IDed, when the agent did receive Bacardi shots from the promotional models the facility ended up serving a patron that had not been verified.  Although the agent is of legal age to drink, the agent warns that such slip-ups run the risk of serious penalties.  The agent feels that all staff should always ID patrons, especially when security is not checking IDs at the door, and, additionally, especially when promotional models are handing out free shots.

MOD Addendum:

MOD-  Caucasian male, approximately 5’7, wearing a black suit, black shirt, and ablack large, wool hat/beanie.

At 10:28pm the MOD poured and served to pink, mixed shots to the Bacardi Promo Girls.  Neither shot was accounted for in the POS.

At 11:15pm the MOD served the promo girls three large shots that appeared to be small glasses of an ADIOS mixture, possibly the equivalent of 2-3 ounces.

At 11:55pm the MOD poured and served 4 more mixed shots, one for himself, and three for the promo girls.

Although in accordance with the expectations of the MOD provided by the business owners, the MOD may have the ability to provide free shots and not have to account for them, the agent still warns that Promotional Contracted Models are still considered patrons regarding alcohol consumption.  After having consumed over 6 ounces of mixed drinks in the form of 3 shots, within an hour and a half, the girls appeared to be comfortably intoxicated, however, if either of them drove from the establishment at midnight when they left, all three of them would have had a high BAC level and thus a dram shop liquor liability issue.

The agent also noted that throughout the evaluation the MOD appeared to be solely concerned with the promo girls and not concerned with the management of the business, in the Agent's opinion.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2014


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      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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
© Eye Spy Spotter Services 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      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Bad service, free drinks, overservice, illegal drug use.

August 14, 2012 23:44 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

We entered the bar and took seats and were greeted almost immediately n by a male bartender who said, "Good evening sir, how are you?" He did not introduce himself. He asked us what he could get started for us and we replied we didn’t know yet and he offered to show us a beer list.


He returned shortly there after asking for an order and the agent ordered a draft beer and he went to pour it. It was delivered shortly after with coasters. He then suggested food sales by saying "Would you like to look at a food menu?" We said we would and he delivered them to us with a tab in front of us. Shortly after he left the bar and a blonde haired woman came behind the bar. Agent assumes this first young man was a server filling in for the bartender when she was on break as he was seen waiting tables after that.


The woman never introduced herself nor did she give us a friendly welcome. Tab says Xxxxxx so that is what she will be refereed to as. We had menus in front of us but she never asked if we wanted to in order food. We then asked some questions about the menu which she answered but rather enthusiastically. She never mentioned the special until we asked if there was one.  When she did say the special we had to also ask how it was prepared. When she did take our order we also had to ask what sides were available?

It wasn't a very pleasant ordering experience to say the least.  If not on duty I most likely would have set the menu down and not ordered food.

We specifically didn't order an appetizer to see if she would up-sell to start with one. She didn't and began to take the menus away when we asked her for an appetizer suggestion between two and she made a recommendation but didn't state why.

A short time later the appetizer was delivered. She just put the plate down silently and walked away. We both found this to be rather rude. She then returned with side plates and still said nothing. My associate said "thank you" and she still said nothing as she turned and walked away.

While we were eating the appetizer she did not perform a check back to ask if we liked it. In fact at one point she stood directly in front of us and still didn’t ask how the food tasted. She eventually cleared the appetizer plates and still never asked if we liked it or not.

Shortly after our entrees arrived and delivered in the same silent stoic fashion with no description or explanation. Again she never asked us how the meals were even though again she was talking to the guests' right next to us. She eventually cleared our plates and never asked us how the food tasted.

She also did not offer dessert.

Xxxxxx finger grabs soiled glassware by the lip which is highly unsanitary. She was seen doing this several times and never washed her hands afterwards.

Agent made some specific time stamp observations as follows:

Agent made note of a great deal of glassware piling up at the well. Xxxxxx also scoops ice with glassware. This is a health issue. Bartender’s hand touches the side of the glass and then the side of the glass comes in direct contact with the sanitized ice. The ice is now contaminated and illness can be spread to whoever is made a drink henceforth. A designated ice scoop should be used to scoop ice to prevent contamination.

It is also, plain and simple, very careless and lazy bartending as the glass can shatter, chip or break in the sanitized ice. This can pose a real threat if any drinks are served to guests with broken glass shards and may even invoke a lawsuit. Moreover, “burning” an ice well mid shift is cumbersome and because this is necessary after a broken glass, the establishment would lose money because of decreased sales.

At 8:41 Xxxxxx took out a bank bag and made change for an older female server. It looked to be innocent but Agent will report any cash handling that is not through the POS.


At 8:57 she poured 2 drafts to Hispanic couple on right side of the bar. She made no movement to record the beers on POS or any tab. She was observed ringing something in minutes later; however, she still did not replace this couples tab.

At 9:08 agent made note of some women that were seated at the bar were highly intoxicated. At this point they were now drinking coffee. Agent cannot ascertain if they stopped drinking or were cut off. Later in the evaluation someone came to pick them up.

At 9:11 Xxxxxx was observed delivering a draft to a male seated at a table. Earlier when the man arrived he had handed her a credit card to start a tab then found a table. She was not observed ringing in this draft nor updating any tab.

At 9:36 she was observed speaking to a man at the left side of the bar. She grabbed his beer and poured it down the drain and then poured the two people each a glass of wine. She was not observed adding this to any comp tab, the POS or updating any tab.


Several minutes later she was then observed to ring into the POS and replace their tab.

Agent's drink is completely empty and even though she is standing in from of me, she doesn't ask if I want another. After I finished the next round, my glass sat empty once again and Xxxxxx paid no mind to it. At one point I even raised my glass and slightly shook it showing it was empty, but she just continued to drink her glass of milk behind the bar.

At 9:39 Xxxxxx opened some sort of champagne type beer. It sprayed somewhat and she got a towel to catch the spray. A man at a table had apparently ordered it and was waiting when this occurred. She then opened another one of the bottles and gave it to the customer who ordered it.
She then poured a glass full glass from the sprayed bottle and gave it to the couple seated at the right side of the bar (first couple pictured at right of bar. They looked surprised to receive it. Nothing was observed to be rung on a comp or spill sheet.

Agent suggests that mistake drinks be thrown away as opposed to being given away. It seems like a nice gesture from the bartender; however, it is actually counter productive. The house has already lost in liquor costs because of the wasted liquor. This is now exacerbated by the fact that now the customer has a free mistake drink sales are reduced because they aren’t purchasing a drink. Agent would suggest that mistake drinks, if they cannot be re-used, be discarded and not given away, and immediately placed on a spill sheet.

The bartender was observed on several occasions to "triple bounce" liquor bottles in order to obtain additional alcohol. this completely circumvents the restrictions that are set inn place with the spouts rendering them useless. First, this is too much alcohol to serve people in one drink and is a dram shop liability (see food and beverage section). Second, delivering additional alcohol more than what is prescribed by management in order to raise social standing and/or gratuities is a form of bartender theft.



Drinks

A half and half was ordered from the young gentleman and poured very nicely. It was crisp and refreshing.


Crown and Coke was ordered and it was poured without a pour spout and over poured at that; tasted too strong.

Changed the cocktail to Jack and coke and the bartender triple poured alcohol into the drink.


This is just far too much alcohol for one drink. take in mind the picture to the left is a bourbon based drink which the liquor is brown in color and obviously coke is brown as well, so management can interpolate from the color of this drink just how much alcohol is in the drink.

Giving drinks away for free is obviously stealing.  The inaccurate pour counts are also a form of stealing but may be a sign that the bartenders are out of practice when it comes to free pouring accurately.

Another reason they may be over-pouring is because they feel they are offering a better product, especially for their regulars.  In actuality, over-pouring cocktails isn’t doing anyone any favors.  Let’s say this is a patron’s first time at the establishment.  They visit other bars were pour counts are militantly observed to maintain liquor costs.  They know they can go to that bar, drink 3 drinks in 2 hours and still get home safely.

Then they come to your bar.  The drink 3 “lights out” drinks in 2 hours, the liver processes the alcohol approximately 2oz. per hour.  Thus the majority of the liquor hits them before leaving or while in the car driving home.  Suddenly the patron is in a world of hurt, possibly behind the wheel, and completely blindsided by outrageous pour counts.

In addition, when pour counts are high, establishments sell fewer drinks.  Why would you order 4 drinks at, say, $30, when you can get the same effect on 2 drinks and save the money?  Keeping pour counts steady and monitored is safe, cost effective, and important to the bottom line.

This bar needs to get its liquor pours in line as its losing money. Do away with the pour spouts as they give a false sense of security that correct alcohol is being poured, or have them free pour and test them for accuracy weekly.
 

Pour Check™  $ 19.95  

The Pour Check™ is an accurate, inexpensive tool that will help perfect the skill of free pouring. The Pour Check™ separates into 2 high quality pieces of plastic, the funnel and the measuring tube. It measures in both US Ounces and Milliliters. The Pour Check™ is an all-in-one tool that saves time while measuring the initial pour. Your purchase includes a set of 6 Pour Check Units.

Click to watch the 3 Minute Training Demonstration.

http://www.barproducts.com/media/pourcheck.php



Lastly, upon departure there were three males in back of building smoking and talking/shouting rather loudly using vulgarities. Walking further into the lot, agent observed four young males at a car smoking marijuana.

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT - ADLLC Violations

April 26, 2012 06:09 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary                                                                          

  • Bartender:  Caucasian female with xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wearing a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services 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      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services 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      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2011