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

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, Liquor Liabilty Issues, Dram Shop Issues

March 2, 2014 19:26 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Strip Club Cabaret, Bar Theft, Liquor Law Violations, Intoxicated Employees

 

Facility Summary   

                                                                                                    

When the agent and associate approached the facility from Xxxxx, the agent and associate wondered for a moment if the facility was even open.  The front doors were closed, there were no items in the front area of the facility to imply it was open, such as a space heater or sign, and although there were few cars in the front and back the facility, overall, it appeared empty and quite.


Through the front doors of the establishment, the host area was dark and vacant as well.  The small desk area had a basket of mints.  To the left of the host desk, a doorway opened up to the main room.


A bar ran along the front left corner of the establishment.  Several stools lined the outside of the bar allowing for patron seating.  There were two POS monitors on either side of the bar, the right of which was being used during the evaluation.  The back area of the bar was messy and full of personal items (Please see Bartender Summary for details).

Along the left wall was an ATM machine, and the restrooms were located in the back left corner of the facility.  No restroom attendant occupied either restroom; however, both restrooms were clean, neat, and fully stocked with paper products and soap.


The DJ booth was located in the left back corner of the facility as well, with a cut-out window at the top of the booth to allow the DJ to look out to the stage and crowd.  Throughout the evaluation, the DJ played a variety of upbeat rock, R&B, and pop music.  The music was played at a comfortable and appropriate level.


The DJ himself was barely audible, however.  His statements sounded very garbled and unintelligible based on the fluctuations in pitch in his “DJ voice” and lack of volume of the microphone.  In addition, a serious integrity issue was observed that was performed by the DJ (Please see Bartender Summary for details).


To the right of the DJ booth and extending from the right back corner of the room was a large VIP area that was separated by large, red, sheer drapes hanging from the ceiling.  In addition, a small VIP area was located in the front right corner of the facility with the same red, sheer drapes creating the walls of the room.  In between the two VIP areas and along the right wall was a line of lap dance chairs facing the crowd.  Behind the chairs was a chair-to-ceiling mirror.


In the center of the room toward the back half of the room was a large rectangular stage with a spinning pole in the center.  The stage was raised on a high platform.  Along the sides of the stage were rectangular VIP tables with “reserved” tents and long bottle service menus standing upright.


A small, circular second stage was located in the front of the room toward the bar.  This stage was low to the ground and surrounded by a padded circular shelf with cup holders built into the base.  This stage was not used during the evaluation.


In between the front of the main stage and the second stage, several small tables were available for additional seating.  Each table had three chairs pushed in and facing the stage.


Overall the facility was relatively well maintained and appeared to have been barely touched after the clean up and organization from the night before.  Based on the exterior appearance of the facility, however, there was nothing welcoming about the facility nor anything that the agent felt would entice passing vehicles to stop by.

 

 

 

Bartender Summary       

                                                                                            

·       Bartender 1: Receipt read “Xxxxx”; Caucasian female, approximately 5’5” tall, thin build, with long brown hair, wearing a dark grey “Xxxxx’s” t-shirt, black leggings, and black sneakers.


The agent and associate walked into the bar and stood waiting for their eyes to adjust.  The agent and associate were approached by Bartender 1, who had come out from behind the bar, and told the agent and associate they could sit wherever they pleased and she would come to them to serve them.  The agent and associate took a seat at one of the tables and Bartender 1 walked over to the agent and associate.


Bartender 1 asked us what we would like to drink, and the agent and associate placed drink orders (Please see Food and Beverage Summary for details).  Bartender 1 repeated the order for confirmation and left to pour and retrieve the beverages.


Bartender 1 returned, placing the beverages in front of the agent and associate without beverage napkins.  Bartender 1 stated the price of the beverages.  The agent provided a credit card, and Bartender 1 asked if the agent would like to open or close the tab.  The agent stated that they wanted to open a tab and Bartender 1 asked the agent for an ID in order to hold the card.


Bartender 1 did not ID the associate at all, and although Bartender 1 did take the agent’s ID she did not look at it prior to serving the agent and associate liquor. Furthermore, she did not appear to be concerned with the age of the agent at all, but instead took the ID solely to hold the card.  The agent feels that a cash payment would have prevented Bartender 1 from viewing the agent’s ID entirely.  Neither the agent nor the associate were over 35 and, therefore, should have been ID’d.


Bartender 1 took the card and ID and walked away.  At no point during the evaluation did Bartender 1 formally introduce herself or give the agent and associate her name.

While seated at the table, the agent noted that Bartender 1 decided to sit on the outside of the bar, next to a customer with whom she had been and would be flirting throughout the evaluation.  This patron was a tall African American man with dread locks and a beard, wearing a long-sleeved shirt, sweat pants, and flip flops with socks.  The bartender took a position on the opposite side of the bar at 4:30pm and she returned to this position periodically throughout the evaluation.


Later in the evaluation, the agent and associate approached the bar to order an additional beverage (Please see Food and Beverage summary for details).  Bartender 1 immediately asked if the agent wanted to close the tab.  The agent was surprised, feeling that a more appropriate promotional response would be to ask if the agent wanted another beverage instead of bringing attention to the idea of leaving the establishment.  Instead, an additional beverage was ordered.


Although Bartender 1 quickly provided the associate the beverage, Bartender 1 neglected to place this beverage on the tab and, therefore, the beverage was never paid for.  The agent is sure this was not an unspoken comp’d beverage but, instead, an error of neglect on Bartender 1’s part.

This beverage was served with a beverage napkin.


The agent noted that the back bar area was covered with Bartender 1’s personal bags and possibly some of the DJ’s items.  The agent noted a purse by the register, a large over-sized bag in the center of the back bar area, and a laptop computer bag next to the large bag.

The agent also observed several integrity issues:


At 4:54pm while Bartender 1 was sitting at the bar next to the customer with whom she was flirting, the DJ walked behind the bar and poured three mixed shots, distributing one to Bartender 1, one to the patron with whom she was sitting, and keeping one for himself.  The patron, the DJ, and Bartender 1 took the shots.  None of the beverages were paid for or accounted for on a comp tab.  The agent noted that the DJ and Bartender 1 behaved as if this was common practice. ths is also 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.

At 5:15pm Bartender 1 served herself and the patron with whom she was flirting two large shots of straight Peach Ciroc.  Neither of these shots was paid for nor accounted for on a comp tab.

Bartender 1 was noted to almost immediately pick up her cell phone and text as soon as the patron with whom she was flirting walked away to use the restroom or make a call outside.

While talking to the patron with whom she was flirting, Bartender 1 complained several times that she was “so bored”.

Bartender 1 and the patron were also overheard several times making fun of Xxxxx, making statements such as “crack kills” and “gotta love heroin”.  The agent feels that not only should staff never make fun of other staff as it portrays a negative impression of the establishment, but, more importantly, if Bartender 1 was obviously aware of Xxxxx’s state of intoxication, it is Bartender 1’s responsibility to cut her off and ensure she leaves the property within the allotted and legally required amount of time.

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

 

Overall, the agent felt that Bartender 1 completely neglected almost all aspects of her job and its responsibilities.  As a regular patron, the agent would hope that Bartender 1 was not working if the agent ever decided to return.

 

 

Dancer Summary

 

Dancer 1: Possibly Named Xxxxx; African American female, approximately 5’6” tall, thin build, with black hair worn up in a side bun, wearing a black bra, a green lace thong, and black boots.

Dancer 2: Caucasian female, approximately 5’5” tall, medium build, with long brown hair, wearing a matching green and black thong and bra, and black heels.

Dancer 3: Named Xxxxx; Caucasian female, approximately 5’7” tall, thin build, with blonde hair worn up in xxxxxxxxxx  up-do, wearing a black bra, black ruffled underwear, black thigh highs, and clear heels.

Dancer 4: Caucasian female, approximately 5’4” tall, medium build, with blonde hair, wearing a white thong white bra, white heels, and a knee brace.

Throughout the evaluation there were only four dancers working; however, at no point during the evaluation were all four dancers out on the floor at the same time.  Although there were few dancers on shift to begin with, only having two or three out on the floor at a time caused the establishment to be even less appealing.

Overall the dancers were not very friendly or welcoming.

Dancer 2 was observed either off of the floor in the back area or sitting by herself against the right wall in a lap dance chair, watching TV and pouting.  She was not observed talking to any customers or employees and sat with her arms and legs crossed watching TV.  When she was called onstage to perform her set, she did so with minimal enthusiasm and appeared entirely bored.

Dancer 4 was initially observed talking to customers at the bar when the evaluation began.  She performed an enthusiastic set, doing pole tricks and flirting with the few customers in the establishment.  She did not approach the agent and associate however.

Dancer 1 performed her set enthusiastically as well, doing several pole tricks and dancing around the stage for the few patrons seated at the bar.  Dancer 1 was observed exiting the VIP area in the beginning of the evaluation, having just performed a dance, however was not observed talking to any other patrons thereafter and did not approach the agent and associate.

The only dancer that did approach the agent and associate, as well as every other patron in the establishment, was Dancer 3, Xxxxx.  Dancer 3, however, was clearly intoxicated.  Her movements on stage and her physical appearance, including the appearance of her pupils caused the agent to believe Xxxxx was extremely high and possibly drunk as well.

 

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

 

 

When Xxxxx finished her set on stage she was observed approaching the bar and ordered a gin and tonic.  Xxxxx walked from the bar with the freshly poured beverage and came directly to the agent and associate who were seated at a table.  Xxxxx introduced herself and unknowingly spilled her beverage all over the associate’s lap.  Xxxxx was slurring her words terribly and barely stood up straight.  The agent was shocked that she was working in such a condition.

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

 

Xxxxx asked the agent and associate if they were interested in a dance, which they declined.  Xxxxx then spent much of the evaluation in the DJ booth with the DJ and in the back room.

 

The agent did not observe the dancers perform any lap dances.

 

In addition, there were periods of ten minutes and longer that no dancer was on stage at all.

 

Overall, the agent and associate were very disappointed with the lack of friendliness of the dancers and the sloppy presentation of Xxxxx.  The agent feels that if this is what most day shifts look like, in regard to how many dancers work and how they behave, it is no surprise the establishment was extremely quiet.

 

 

 

Security Summary

There was no Security working during this evaluation.

 

 

 

Food and Beverage Summary                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                            

Spotter Notes:

 

While seated at the bar, the agent and associate struck up a conversation with Bartender 1 twice.  At this point the agent, associate, and a male African American patron with whom Bartender 1 was flirting were the only three customers in the establishment.

 

The agent feels that part of the customer loss was due to the fact that the dancers did not pay the customers much attention and that Bartender 1 was paying all of her attention to the one customer.

 

When talking to Bartender 1, the third patron was in the bathroom.  As soon as the patron returned, Bartender 1 walked away from the agent and associate, in the middle of the agent asking a question.

 

The second conversation occurred while the third patron was outside on the phone. Again, when the third patron returned, Bartender 1 abruptly stopped talking to the agent and associate and returned to paying all of her attention to the third customer.

During the first conversation, the agent asked about the level of business at that time (which was three customers).  Bartender 1 stated that the nights were busy at the establishment but “the days suck”.

 

Bartender 1 continued to state that that particular day was the busiest day the establishment had had in a long time.  Bartender 1 was referring to the six customers that were in the establishment at the beginning of the evaluation.  As a regular patron, this description would cause the agent to believe the establishment was never upbeat and lively during the day and would choose to go elsewhere during the day.

 

In addition, Bartender 1 stated that Hi Liter has the best strip club day shift.  Bartender 1 spent several minutes stating that it was a great day shift with food and happy hour drink specials.  The agent felt that this was a very inappropriate conversation due to the fact that it was promoting a competing establishment and putting down Xxxxx’s Cabaret.

For the first round of beverages, the agent ordered a Red Bull/vodka, which Bartender 1 did not try to up-sell.  Bartender 1 did, however, pour the beverage with accurate pour counts and provided a beverage that was consistent and accurate in flavor.

For his first and second beverage, the associate ordered Coronas.  Both Coronas were fresh and cold.

 

Reserved VIP Tables:

 

The agent asked Bartender 1 about the reserved tables by the stage.  Each table had a large “Reserved” tent on the table as well as an upright bottle service menu.  Bartender 1 explained that these tables were said to be reserved in case a large party came into the establishment and wanted to order bottle service.  Bartender 1 stated that the “reserved” sign enabled the staff to ask those patrons who did not order bottle service to move.

Bartender 1 stated that these tables did not cost extra due to the cost of the bottle service.

Drink Tickets:

 

Bartender 1 was not able to clearly explain the drink tickets, however, did provide a few for the agent.  Bartender 1 explained that the staff gave away the tickets to the patrons.

 

The patrons were required to pay the $10 cover at the door and then were able to use the drink tickets.  The agent asked several questions but did not get further clarification.

 

The tickets were given to the agent as if they could be used at another date, however, the tickets state that they are to be used the same day they are acquired and each ticket is dated, which would imply they are useless and have already been used.

 

Cab Drivers:

 

Bartender 1 made a comment about the amount of cab drivers that come into the establishment during the day shifts.  Bartender 1 then explained that they come in because all cab drivers are given kickbacks from the gentlemen’s clubs in the area.  Bartender 1 explained that the cab drivers get $5 per patron they bring to the establishment when those patrons do not pay cover.  When those patrons do pay cover, the cab drivers receive the entire $10 cover charge per patron.

 

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 - 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


Free drinks for females, Bartender drinking alcohol behind the bar. Bartender Theft and Liquor Liability Issues

August 31, 2010 20:51 by administrator

Bartender Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADLLC VIOLATION
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3
4-244. Unlawful acts
12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food and Beverage Summary 

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

Notes from Bartender Summery:

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

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

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

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

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

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

BARTENDER THEFT:

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

bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

 


Bartender Theft - Free drinks for female customers - Illegal Alcohol Drinking by staff ADLLC Violations

July 16, 2010 23:29 by administrator

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1 - Xxxxx:  Tall Caucasian male with dark brown long, spiky hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.
  • Bartender 2:  Caucasian male with longer shaggy blonde hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.
  • Bartender 3:  Tan skinned (possibly Mediterranean or Hispanic) male with dark brown, short spiky hair and short facial hair around the chin.  He wore a black shirt, partially opened in the front, with a necklace.
  • Bartender 4:  Tan skinned (possibly Mediterranean or Hispanic) male with short spiky brown hair.  He wore a black shirt and jeans.
  • Bartender 5:  Caucasian female with tan skin and dark brown hair pulled back in a ponytail.  She wore a black skirt and top.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADLLC VIOLATION
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3
4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

ADLLC VIOLATION
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3
4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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

BARTENDER THEFT:

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010


Bartender Theft, Not Ringing Drinks, Intoxicated Patrons, Liquor Liability Issues, Dram Shop Issue.

April 1, 2010 00:29 by administrator
BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010


Bartender Theft, Free Drinks, Employee Liquor Consumption - Liquor Liabilities.

March 23, 2010 18:07 by administrator
BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary:

Note:  Agent was told by a member of security that the establishment has seven bars.  During the two hour period, Agent was only able to visit five of the seven bars.  The following evaluations have been separated by bar.  Please note the general description of the bar as a reference.

Bar 1:  Xxxxxxxxxxxx of the pool tables

  • Bartender A:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’5” tall, thin build, long, straight, highlighted hair (Xxxxx on Xxxxx)
  • Bartender B:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’4” tall, stocky build, very curly Xxxxx hair

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Agent and associates approached Bar 1 at 10:50PM.  The bar was observed to be very busy in an objective viewpoint.  Agent was requested to report speed/politeness of staff. Bartender A made eye contact with us within two minutes.  Bartender A elicited a drink order from the Agent over the din. Service was reported to be fast.  Bartender A did not make any connection with the Agent. Service is reported to be impolite.

Bartender A poured a solid 6-count highball.  Agent is not privy to the facilities standardized official pour count; therefore, will as a general rule, default to the national  standard highball contains about 1.5-ounces of liquor(4-count = 1.5 oz.). From this 4 count standard a 6-count highball is objectively flagged as an over pour. 

Bartender A served the drinks, sans beverage napkins (Agent cannot attest if this is a standard at this location or not, but reports it as such), and then asked Agent if they would like to start a tab or pay cash.  Agent handed over a credit card and asked Bartender A to go ahead and close it out.  Bartender A moved to the POS system. Agent noted Bartender A accounted for all drinks ordered accurately.

Bartender B also pours a 6-count highball. 

Bartender B was observed handling cash ethically, and counting change back accurately for guests.

Agent and associates sat at this bar for approximately 30 minutes observing operations.  At approximately 11PM, Bartender A was observed preparing three, pink-colored shots for customers at the end of the bar.  Bartender A personally consumed one of the alcohol shots. Agent did not observe manager approval. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

At 11:15PM, Bartender A greeted two male patrons. It was objectively obvious to Agent that Bar A was acquainted with the patrons. The male patrons ordered 4 bottled beers, but Agent observed Bartender A charge for only two beers.  Agent audibly heard Bartender A state that the other two beers “are on me.” 

 

Bar 2:  Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of the pool tables, characterized by a Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

  • Bartender C:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’7” tall, with short, xxxx-xxxx hair under a ball cap; he has a goatee
  • Bartender D:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’8” tall, shoulder-length Xxxxx hair

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Agent and associates took seats at Bar 2 at approximately 11:20PM.  This bar was observed to be very busy.  When we arrived, Bartender C was busy preparing approximately 15 shooters for a group of guests around the bar, while Bartender D took drink orders from the other guests around the bar. 

We waited approximately five minutes for service.

Bartender C waited on us as soon as he was available.  He was friendly and welcoming.  Agent would classify this as “polite” as instructed by management.

Drinks were prepared quickly and served without beverage napkins. 

Bartender C prepares highballs with a 6-count pour.  (4-count= 1.5 oz.) 

Bartender C offered to start a tab for us, but Agent instead presented a credit card and asked for the tab to be closed out.  Bartender C presented Agent with receipts. He did not have a pen when presenting bill. One was presented <1 minute later. 

Agent and associates sat at Bar 2 for approximately 50 minutes.  At approximately midnight, Agent observed as Bartender D prepared Rumplemintz shots for her bar guests.  Once prepared and served, Bartender D had two shots left over for herself and for another male employee behind the bar. The two consumed the shots and then continued working. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

(Agent believed this man may have been a barback, but later he was observed answering a question for a bartender that seemed to be about the POS system.  Thus, he may have been the manager and therefore approved of the employee alcohol consumption.  He is a Xxxxx male, approximately 5’9” tall, with light Xxxxx hair under his ball cap.  His face was scruffy, but without full facial hair.) 

Bartender D also serves a solid 6-count highball.

Agent observed a plastic cup on the backbar filled with a dark Xxxxx liquid.  Agent did not see which bartender was drinking this drink and also cannot confirm that it was alcohol based.

 

Bar 3:  Second Floor, Left side when facing the rear of the building (larger than the bar on the right side)

  • Bartender E:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’7” tall; he has Xxxxx, wavy hair under a ball cap; his face was scruffy without the presence of full facial hair

Agent and associates approached Bar 3 at 12:15PM. Every stool at the bar was taken and there was a row of guests behind the bar stools waiting to be served.  Bartender E was working alone and was observed NOT to be “fast” as instructed to observe by management. 

On several occasions, Bartender E was observed to be objectively confused and stare at his liquor display for several minutes. 

Agent noted that Bartender E groups orders to ring in the POS. 

Agent waited for service at Bar 3 for 20 minutes without service or eye contact from Bartender E.  Due to time constraints and the number of bars still needing visits, Agent made a professional judgment call to move on without further observing Bartender E. 


Bar 4:  Second Level, Right side when facing the rear of the building

  • Bartender F:  Xxxxx female, approximately 5’3” tall; she has long, thick, curly Xxxxx hair.

Name on Agent’s receipt reads “Xxxxx”

Bartender F proved to be skilled and efficient in service.  Agent navigated crowd to the bartop and received immediate eye contact and a friendly service from Bartender F.

Service was provided within 2 minutes.  Bartender F took our drink order at 12:40PM and fulfilled it promptly.  She moved to the POS and rang in the drink order.  She quoted a price, and Agent handed her a card with the instruction to close out the tab.  Bartender F closed out the card and handed Agent receipts to sign.

She pours a spot-on 5-count for highballs each and every time without deviation ever.

While seated at Bar 4, Agent observed Bartender F working with the man Agent had suspected was a barback.  This employee (a Xxxxx male, approximately 5’9” tall, with light Xxxxx hair under his ball cap) seemed to be answering a question for Bartender F about the POS system.  At this point, Agent was unsure of this man’s role in the establishment. 

Bar 5:  Smoking Bar, Top Floor

  • Bartender G:  Xxxxx male, approximately 5’11” tall, clean shaven but scruffy, light Xxxxx hair under a ball cap

The smoking bar on the top floor was less busy than the other bars in the establishment.  Bartender G was neither fast nor slow. He was observed “polite” to some guests and obtuse to others.

Agent arrived at Bar 5 at approximately 1AM and sat for about 15 minutes.  At approximately 1:07, Agent observed Bartender G consume a shot of Dark Sambucca with a bar guest.  Agent did not observe manager approval. Bartender A failed to ring up the shots on the POS or account for the liquor order in any matter apparent to Agent.

Bartender G pours an inconsistent 5-count highball. Agent observed one rum and Coke observed was poured with a 7-count and served in a pint glass. 

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com

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

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