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

May 9, 2012 16:29 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

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

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

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

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


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

Neither bartender offered their name to the agent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Zenner - CEO      
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


Using the "NO SALE" button to effectively embezzle money as Bartender Theft.

April 25, 2012 01:05 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Using the "NO SALE" button to effectively embezzle money as Bartender Theft.

The article below an example how bartenders will use the "no sale" key to mask bartender theft issues. The embezzlement takes place when the bartender accepts cash goes to the register or terminal and presses "no sale" to open the drawer and make it appear they are going to the register to appease anyone watching and/or cameras. From here the stealing occurs by them putting the money in their pocket or tip jar AND/OR they may store the stolen money in the register itself to take out at a later time. Watch for any abacus system they may be using to track the stolen embezzled money in the register (pennies/nickels/dimes in the drawer, colored M&M's, straws, toothpicks, cell phones etc). Many times they will use the ruse of changing out one dollar bills from the tip jar placing two $40 in one's in the register and taking out a $100 in $20's and making it appear legitimate when in actuality they have in fact effectively laundered the stolen money. An additional counter to this is to perform frequent random drawer pulls mid-shift to discover if they are gregariously over in the drawer and match against the "no sale" frequency. On that note, we also recommend not letting them "Z" a register and using a blind bank drop instead (e-mail our office for a form and further information info@eyespyspotter.com). Lastly, if at all possible, disable the "no sale" button completely. If they need to make change for say pool tables or something of that nature, have a separate bank in say a zipper money bag with $50 in quarters for them to exchange. Anybody who complains about this should send up a red flag for you.

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

bartheft.com  (blog)

'Clam' Bartender Arrested for Theft

By Tracy Proulx

The owner of The Drunken Clam bar on Greenville Avenue reported a bartender for pocketing the money he'd collected from customers. Johnston Police charged Adam W. Cesario, 26, of 8 Greenville Ave., Johnston, with two felony counts of embezzlement of more than $100 on Apr. 8 after the owner of The Drunken Clam bar, located downstairs in the same building, alleged that Cesario had pocketed the money paid by customers on two separate nights.

Thomas Paolantonio, owner of The Drunken Clam, called local officers on Apr. 8 and requested that they impose a no-trespass order on Cesario for the bar. When the officers arrived, Ptlm. Joseph McGinn reported, Paolantonio told them that he had fired Cesario after reviewing sales receipts from Apr. 4 and 5 and discovering a $400 difference in reported sales and the actual money collected.According to the police report, Paolantonio also explained that he reviewed the surveillance tapes and saw Cesario serving drinks, then pressing the “no sale” button on the cash register.

Paolantonio also told the officers that Cesario took the money from the customers, but placed the money into his pants pocket or the tip jar. When Paolantonio confronted Cesario with the information, he told McGinn, Cesario admitted he pocketed the money and agreed to pay Paolantonio back. Cesario estimated the amount owed to The Drunken Clam was about $300, and described his actions as “wrong” and stemming from “immature frustration,” according to McGinn's report.

Officers arrested Cesario with two counts of embezzlement, one each for Apr. 4 and 5, and presented him for arraignment at police headquarters, where he was released on $5,000 personal recognizance until a scheduled June 8 court hearing.


BARTENDER BAR 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. 2012


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

April 22, 2012 01:38 by administrator

Bartender Summary                                                                          

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

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

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

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

When agent’s drink was about 90% empty the bartender approached and offered something new.  Throughout the evaluation the bartender was good about offering new drinks before the guest was completely empty which is an excellent practice.  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 bartenderxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx while pouring draft beer, but was also observed waiting for a guest to finish drinking their beer so she could use the same glass which agent found quite lazy of her.  The guest was clearly annoyed by being pressured to finish the beer in the glass.

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
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, intoxicated bartender, employee drug use, liquor violations, heath code violations, smoking law violations.

September 22, 2011 00:31 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36-601.01. Smoke-free Arizona act

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum:

Food and Beverage Summary

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

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

The specialty cocktails ordered were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum:

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

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

This is an ADLLC Violation.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

Michael Zenner - CEO      
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. 2011


BARTENDER THEFT - Grouping of drink orders and delayed drink rings - Bartender keeping seperate bank

June 30, 2011 20:25 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

There were three bartenders on duty during the duration of the agent’s visit.  Bartender A was the day bartender who was finishing up her shift during the time when the agent arrived.  This bartender had on Xxxxx as a nametag.  Xxxxx is a Caucasian female with long dark hair.  She was wearing khaki shorts and a blue Xxxxx’s tank top.

She presented well to the public, but was notably unfriendly to this agent.  She did very little to greet the agent at the bar top and almost seemed reluctant to serve the agent. 

This bartender was observed during the first portion of the visit and was seen using an ice scoop and ringing in all beverages on the POS system.  Xxxxx was seen bouncing bottles to apparently cheat the pour spouts control or over pouring beverages, but was not seen committing overt theft of money.

At the end of Xxxxx’s shift, she was seen consolidating money from both POS register drawers into one drawer by simply amassing the cash and moving it to the primary drawer for her, which was the POS closest to the door.  This concerns this agent greatly and the agent can come up with no reasonable explanation why any single bartender would need two operating banks on separate POS machines at one time.  This makes the checkout system very convoluted.

In observing her checkout, there was an inordinate amount of “yellow scratch pad math” going on for this checkout was very alarming. 

This is a fairly up to date POS system that this agent is familiar with.  The bartender should simply be running a checkout in the presence of a manager and the checkout should tell exactly what the drop is.  This agent is confused about this checkout and highly suspicious of this procedure. 

Xxxxx was also seen counting out tips to her drawer and this should be avoided at all cost.  If bartenders want to change singles out to the bar, they should do it with the manager on duty after their cash out has been completed. 

Xxxxx was also observed taking a split of what looked like Sutter Home Chardonnay and putting it in her tip bucket on the way to do her checkout.  This was not seen rung in. 

This is also an ADLLC Violation as she is consuming alcohol while performing an act of “work” duty. 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.

Xxxxx was heard saying that she has been with Xxxxx’s for over ten years.  This type of long term employee knows the systems very well and knows where the holes in the system exist. Agent found a lot of her actions to be highly suspicious.

Bartender B came on duty wearing the nametag Xxxxx.  This bartender was wearing a white Xxxxx’s T-shirt that was worn un-tucked with shorts and a backwards baseball cap with a heavy metal band decoration on it.  This bartender did not present well to the public, looked slovenly, and would not entice any guest to the bar other than regulars that have been coming to the bar for years. 

Xxxxx was overheard having a conversation with Xxxxx where she was upset about someone “coaching” her on her pours.  Xxxxx was overheard saying something to the effect that they were watching and something was going to happen.  This lead this agent to the conclusion that these bartenders know that first, there are issues at the, second, they have been told or intimated to that there needs to be changes, and third that they are being watched. 

Agent’s analysis of this is they are aware that wrong-doing is happening and are on alert. Agent has concern that the investigations may be skewed because they are aware they are being “watched.” Last, it is a concern that this information is being spread and discussed within full earshot of paying customers – most of which are regulars. Agent suggests that the bartenders be instructed not to discuss such matters in front of paying guests or else face disciplinary action if they do.

During this visit, the agent was seemingly the only person seated at the bar that the bartenders did not know personally.  This made it very difficult to ascertain theft.  Xxxxx was also seen ringing in every beverage and going to every extent to hit the POS immediately after every transaction.

Bartender C was Chris.  She was a petite female Caucasian with light brown hair wearing shorts and a Xxxxx’s T-shirt. 

Chris was the only friendly bartender that this agent encountered.  Because of the changeover from Xxxxx, Chris was forced to delay her rings until Xxxxx cleared her drawer.  Although all drinks were seen apparently rung in once Xxxxx cleared her drawer, these bartenders have swipe cards and there should be no reason for delaying drink rings because the sales go directly to the server or bartender associated with that card.  Again all of this was rather concerning. This having been said, the agent did not witness overt theft from Chris either.

Though no overt loss of product other than the split of wine taken by Xxxxx was witnessed, this agent has serious concerns about this bar. Those will be briefly outlined:  There is not active management presence in this bar from anyone who doesn’t directly profit from tips.  As noted earlier, the case of multiple banks in use by one bartender on separate POS systems is concerning and something that this agent has not seen before in any bar, club or restaurant either managed or evaluated. 

There was also a curious POS screen seen after one of the regulars cashed out.  The total came through from Xxxxx and instead of issuing a price like the agent’s $3.75, this screen read -$10.00. 

The only thing that this agent can think of is a system of house accounts where the clientele is sold on credit or pre-sold alcohol.  This is a gray zone in understanding for this agent and should be investigated by the owners both in terms of loss and in terms of liquor law compliance.  For liability purposes, all guests should have a record of what they have consumed on that visit.  There were no visible receipts at all during the entirety of this visit. 

Lastly, another employee, female with a tribal arm band was seen drinking alcohol heavily on this shift.  This is a bad practice and will inevitably lead to massive losses behind the bar.  It is this agent’s opinion that these bartenders are  most likely consuming much of the loss. 

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. 2011


BARTENDER THEFT - Grouping of drink orders and delayed drink rings can lead to unaccouted for alcohol drinks.

May 17, 2011 15:22 by administrator

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1:  Tan Caucasian male with short brown hair with a small frontal flip.  He was stationed at the northeast corner of the Xxxxxx main bar.
  • Bartender 2:  Thin Caucasian male with short brown, slightly messy hair.  He was stationed at the xxxx bar near the smoking area.
  • Bartender 3:  Caucasian male with short brown hair wearing a pen behind his ear.  He was stationed at the upstairs long bar in the xxxxxx room.
  • Bartender 4:  Caucasian female with blonde hair pulled in a pony tail.  She wore a greenish bustier and was stationed at the upstairs satellite bar in the Xxxxxx room.
  • Bartender 5:  Caucasian male with gelled hair combed to the middle and a tattoo on his arm.  He was stationed at the southeast corner of the Xxxxxx main bar.

The agent found an open spot at the bar and awaited service.  Bartender 1 was very busy, and was attempting to work as quickly as possible.  The agent appreciated the effort; however, he seemed to work at the expense of precision pouring.  Many of the concoctions that he was pouring were rather heavy at a 5-6 count pours (4 count = 1 ½ oz).  Systemically, the pours were heavier when poured in tall glasses.  The agent could not confirm whether these beverages were ordered as doubles or if the extra liquor was due to a charge increase for drinks served tall. 

Bartender 1 also had the tendency to group orders.  Being that there were so many customers, he often began taking orders as he was pouring beverages for other customers and did not wait for payment before beginning preparation for subsequent orders.  The agent understands that this may be perceived as an effective way to service customers at a quicker pace, but the practice also lends itself to cash manipulation and/or mistakes.  When the agent ordered a beverage, it would have been easy to have walked without payment because transactions were not completed immediately. Agent stresses that a lot of revenue is probably being lost by the ineffective ringing.

Bartender 2 was stationed at the outdoor Xxxxxx bar, and handled a much lower customer volume.  Bartender 2 was very methodical in his approach and was diligent about ringing orders immediately after service. 

Furthermore, his pouring style was appropriate, typically ranging from about a 3-4 count portion.  The patience and conscientiousness did not significantly impede service speed, and there was no indication that he was grouping orders or giving away free beverages.  All orders seemed to be fully accounted for in his POS entries, and he maintained a clean bar.

Bartender 3 was also handling a significant customer flow, and he was rather disorganized in his POS practices.  He was constantly grouping orders and was likely to have made mistakes in taking orders.

When the agent ordered a beverage, Bartender 3 took several orders simultaneously.  This eventually led to confusion regarding what drinks went on which credit card.  Bartender 3 had to return to the agent to confirm which beverages were included on which tab.  It was evident that mistakes are easily occurring using this grouping practice. 

Furthermore, he was heavy handed in his pours, typically delivering a 5-6 count for mixed beverages.

Bartender 4 was stationed at the upstairs satellite bar.  She handled a very small volume of customers and seemed to have things under control.  The bar was kept clean, and she made sure to ring orders into the POS immediately following service. 

Furthermore, her pours were consistent and appropriate, using a 3-4 count pour on all beverages.  She was organized and efficient.

Bartender 5 was stationed at the Xxxxxx main bar, and was overwhelmed with customers.  The agent waited several minutes before he was able to approach. 

It was noted that he has a preference for serving female customers, often overlooking males that may have been waiting for longer periods of time. 

Although his pouring practices were responsible, he was not diligent about entering orders into the POS following service.  He was observed grouping orders and handling multiple transactions simultaneously. 

When the agent ordered a beverage, he prepared the beverage quickly and quoted a price.  Rather than waiting for the agent to pay he moved on to serve another customer.  When he returned he grabbed the agent’s credit card as well as another customer’s card that had been part of the beverage group.  It was clear that he was not organized in his approach, as he had to return to ask us which card went with which order.  Although it is promising that he was aware of his error, this practice is clearly not efficient and is prone to errors.

Overall, the pouring styles of the bartenders were relatively consistent and appropriate in volume; however, there was a trend of grouping orders that was evident throughout the night.  This type of practice can easily lead to mistakes, beverage giveaways, cash manipulation, and it is the most effective way to mask bar theft. 

In the case of Bartender 3, he was heavy handed in his pours and was also guilty of grouping orders.

With the exception of the satellite bar, none of the bars were kept clean and speedy service was prioritized over proper POS practices.  The agent would have definitely recommended one additional bartender at the Xxxxxx main bar, as this location seemed to be the least clean and to have the most difficulty in handling the customer volume. 

In the Agent’s opinion, Bartenders, along with the rest of the staff, need to be a bit more cognizant of customer intoxication.  This is a team effort, and it is important for the bartenders to look for signs of intoxication (slurred speech, imprecise movement, etc.).
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. 2011


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

April 26, 2011 01:41 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT

Bartender Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both bartenders kept up with washing and restocking glassware.

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
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. 2011


Bartender Theft - not ringing in drinks right away. Grouping & Delaying drink rings to hide bartender theft.

November 16, 2010 22:07 by administrator

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1:  Xxxxxx female with long dark brown hair pulled back in pig tails.  She wore a black costume, had tattoos across her chest and fake blood on her face.  She was stationed at the xxxx POS.
  • Bartender 2:  Xxxxxx female with straight dark brown hair.  She wore a costume, a plaid button down shirt, short jean shorts and a hat on backwards.  She was stationed at the xxxxx POS.
  • Bartender 3:  Xxxxxx female with straight dark brown hair.  She wore a red bustier, devil horns and a black skirt.  She was stationed at the xxxx POS. 

All of the bartenders worked the entire area while maintaining the use of their own individual registers.  The girls were consistent with ringing drinks in to the POS where the drink tab was originally started.  They would each help the patrons who were in need of service and were mindful of who started the tab and which computer it was rung on. 

The agent approached the bar and was first greeted by Bartender 1.  She was not overly friendly; she seemed to take more of the professional approach rather than making small talk and engaging in idle chatter she simply took the drink order.  She turned from the agent, made the drink ordered and placed it upon a clean cocktail napkin.  When the order was placed, Bartender 1 made no attempt to up-sell or ask for a brand of liquor preference.  Bartender 1 gave the agent a verbal order total and asked for a form of payment.  Once given the credit card for the tab she asked if the agent preferred to close it out or to keep it open. 

The agent sat and observed the workings of the bar.  The agent observed that each of the bartenders were inconsistent with their pour counts.  The liquor counts varied between three to a long five count.  Each of the bartenders was inconsistent and had a few over and under pour counts.  Bartender 1 was the heaviest pour generally using a heavy five count.

Bartender 2 was observed by the agent using her cell phone while standing by the register.  After checking her phone she placed it back on the side of the POS. 

At another point in the evening at approximately 11pm, the agent observed three of the bartenders gathered around Bartender 2’s register.  Bartender 1 finished putting something in to the POS, the drawer popped open, and she made change and walked away while leaving the drawer open while the other two girls stood nearby.  At this point Bartender 2 walked over to the register, lifted the register drawer and placing something under the till.  She then put the till back down and closed the register.  The agent found this to be odd behavior from the bartenders and suspects an integrity issue. 

The agent did not observe any of the bartenders offering doubles to their patrons. 

The agent also noted that the bartenders would frequently group their orders together as opposed to the make a drink ring a drink method.  They would each take an order from one patron, make the drink, deliver it and then take another drink order before approaching the POS.  None of them grouped their orders every time; at points in the service they did observe the make a drink ring a drink. 

The problem with grouping checks lies in the opportunity for bartenders to get away with giving away free drinks by not entering all items in to the POS.  Grouping checks also makes it difficult for the agent as well as management to notice when drinks are being left off the final check.

When the agent’ drink became low he was approached by both Bartender 1 and Bartender 3.  The agent turned them down until he was ready to place an order for another round.  When he was ready Bartender 3 took his order.  When she delivered the drinks she asked what name the tab was under.

Bartender 2 seemed to be the friendliest of all the bartenders.  She interacted with her patrons and made small talk.

When it was time for the agent to close out his tab, he ordered one more round and then asked Bartender 1 to close him out.  She completed the transaction efficiently and in a timely manner. 

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