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

WARNING: Businesses fall victim to online 'extortion' scam

July 10, 2014 20:43 by administrator

WARNING: Businesses fall victim to online 'extortion' scam

by Gary Harper

azfamily.com

Posted on July 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM

PHOENIX -- Have you ever looked up online reviews before eating at a restaurant or maybe making reservations at a hotel? 3 On Your Side warns, don't believe everything you read.

Not everything on the Internet is true. For example, some businesses pose as a consumer and post negative comments about a competitor.

And here's a new scam: someone will post a negative comment and then promise to remove it if the business owner pays them off. That's what happened to Fred Renstrom, owner of Fat Freddy's Catering.

"When I built the kitchen, I wanted to have a 6,000-square-foot facility," Renstrom said, as he proudly showed 3 On Your Side around the spacious facility.

Renstrom opened his catering business 20 years ago and says during that time, he's built quite the reputation as having great, quality food and a clean kitchen. In fact, look Fat Freddy's Catering up on county inspection reports and you'll see it always earns A ratings.

"We've always been a problem-solver for our customers," he said. "We built the business through word-of-mouth basically."

Word-of-mouth sure has paid off. But Renstrom and his employees say they realized someone was trying to ruin their good name when they started receiving intimidating emails.

Darci Hawthorne works for Fat Freddy's Catering and says the emails are disturbing.

"This I've never seen before," she said. "This type of blatant extortion."

One email states, "I just wanted to alert you that I met someone who is intending to write bad things about your business." That's enough to get any business owner's attention.

Then another email claims, "A friend suffered food poisoning and diarrhea. He intends on writing damaging reviews on as many websites as possible."

The writer of that email went through with the threat.

"This one person posted reviews in Arizona, in Florida, all across the country in one day," Hawthorne said.

Then, after the damaging reviews were posted, another email came. Except this one had a so-called solution.

"So, what I propose is that I get involved as a mediator and simply convince my colleague not to write anything about you publicly," the email says. "If I succeed, I want only $199."

That's right. The writer is demanding $199 to be paid through PayPal in order to remove those fabricated, negative reviews posted on the World Wide Web.

Renstrom says it's a disgusting ploy. "I just don't know," he said, shaking his head. "There's no better word than what it is. It's extortion!"

Renstrom says he didn't pay the money. He says it's a warning not only to business owners but to consumers as well.

"My thing is, it's America," he says. "You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And (on) the Internet, they can say what they want to say and I don't quite get that."

He has a point. So, remember that next time you come across online reviews, and take them with a grain of salt.

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Hospitality Checkpoint LLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Hospitality Checkpoint LLC 2014


Tags:
Categories: Blog | Industry Information
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

BARTENDER THEFT: Resort bartender laundering stolen money through the tip jar

April 10, 2014 19:25 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

 

Bartender Summary

·       Lobby Bar Bartender – Xxxxxx; Caucasian female, early 20s, petite and slender, medium length blond hair, wearing a light blue button down dress shirt, dark blue slacks, sash belt, and name tag.

The agent was greeted by Xxxxxx upon taking a seat at the bar.  

She said “Hi, what can I get you”. She seemed nice and friendly however she did not introduce herself by name.

Xxxxxx placed a napkin on the bar while the agent placed an order.  She turned and immediately prepared the beverage.

The agent did not receive a receipt for any of the drinks ordered, nor did Xxxxxx ask for a credit card or room number to start a tab.

Drinks served to patrons at the bar were not always immediately entered into the POS and therefore it is difficult to discern whether or not all beverages served were accounted for.  However, the agents tab was correct. Agent strongly suggests that managemtn instruct all bartenders to follow a make a drink – ring a drink policy.

Beyond the first beverage ordered, additional cocktail napkins were not placed down for other beverages.

The agent observed Xxxxxx prepare several liquor based mixed drinks. Each time she was consistent with using the blue plastic ice scoop and lacing it back into the holder in the ice bin.  

Plastic glasses were scooped directly into the ice

Mixed drinks were prepared with a consistent four count pour measurement. The bottles were not fitted with posi pour tops.

A menu was provided upon request, and Xxxxxx followed up with asking for a food order. She seemed knowledgeable about the menu items regarding how they were prepared and portion size.  She described items in an appetizing way and positive manner.

Xxxxxx was observed preparing a drink for a patron who placed cash on the bar as a method of payment when Xxxxxx quoted the amount due. She was observed moving to the POS ringing in the order and returning change to the patron. Later, the agent observed Xxxxxx cashing out a ticket at the POS and was making change directly from the tip jar which seemed very suspicious. Agent strongly suggests follow shops on this bartender.

TIP JAR PROCEDURESThe bartenders’ tip jar should be situated well away from the operation’s cash register or POS. If the tip jar is located right next to the register, it is far too easy for bartenders to divert stolen funds away from the register and into the tip jar. In addition, bartenders should be prohibited from making change out of their tip jar or taking currency from the tip jar and exchanging it for larger denominations out of the cash drawer. If the bartenders are stealing from the business and using the cash drawer for the stolen funds, they can easily retrieve the money from the register under the pretense of making change. For example, a bartender could take 20 one-dollar bills out of the tip jar, deposit the currency into the register, but instead of taking out a $20 bill in exchange, he or she could remove four $20 bills, withdrawing $60 of stolen funds.

The bar and bar area got a little busy with Xxxxxx handling 4 – 5 tables as well as a fairly full bar, and during this time the agent sat with an empty drink for almost 15 minutes. Xxxxxx was overheard apologizing to patrons for taking so long to get to them and saying things such as “I'm sorry have you been waiting.”

A male manager was observed helping serve tables, clear glasses etc. in an attempt to pitch in and help out, although he did not notice the empty drinks on the bar.

The agent placed an order for something to eat at the bar. Xxxxxx was accommodating and helpful with placing the order asking the appropriate questions to ensure the order was prepared accurately.  She made a few suggestions and spoke highly about all the items.

About 10 minutes or so later, Xxxxxx dropped off silverware and salt-and-pepper shakers.

The food was served by another employee who asked if  anything else was needed, and Xxxxxx checked back about 5 minutes or so later asking if everything was okay and if the agent needed anything else.

Another female server with very short hair was observed behind the bar making drinks for one of her own orders that was taken into the dining room.  

The agent cannot confirm whether all of these drinks were on a ticket.  The agent recommends that the only other person allowed behind the bar preparing drinks would be a manager.

Draft beers were served in cold pint-size glasses with the appropriate size foam head.  Wine was served in clean and polished stemmed glasses.

Wine was poured directly into the wine glass without any sort of measurement.  Additional wine served to the same patron was measured out into a small glass carafe. The agent recommends using the carafe every time for accuracy and consistency.

When Xxxxxx was not busy she was observed preparing garnishes, stocking the bar, drinking from a white foam cup, and putting on lipstick.

The agent thought Xxxxxx did a fairly good job following up and offering additional drinks, except for a period of about 45 minutes when she was busy serving tables in the bar area.  During this time, the agent noticed several patrons with empty drinks.

Upon request, the itemized receipt was presented.  After method of payment was placed out, it took about 10 minutes for Xxxxxx to pick it up process it and return the receipt which seemed a little long.

She thanked the agent and was pleasant.

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Hospitality Checkpoint LLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Hospitality Checkpoint LLC 2014

 


Connected Kegs Help Keep Your Favorite Beers Flowing

March 11, 2014 23:19 by administrator

 Connected Kegs Help Keep Your Favorite Beers Flowing

 

 

 The iKeg automated inventory system may be a godsend for bar owners.

 

Here’s a refreshing idea for bar owners: An Indiana startup called SteadyServ is hoping to make the process of ordering and monitoring beer kegs smarter and more efficient.

 

Through a mix of hardware and software, SteadyServ’s iKeg system provides realtime inventory data, and syncs with distributors to streamline the delivery process. The idea is to make the process of maintaining tap lines more efficient, and to allow owners to anticipate demand.

 

Bar workers and managers often rely on an imprecise system of guesswork, literally shaking kegs to determine how much beer they have left. Often, they don’t know when a keg is finished until the tap itself sputters to a halt. Even if a bar employs some crackerjack weight guesser, it's still forced to leave one foot in the "beer cage" and the other on the restaurant floor.

 

SteadyServ offers a solution in the form of mobile-based live inventory management. Through the iKeg iOS or Android app, users can oversee their entire ordering process, and make decisions based on realtime keg data. The app can suggest profitable beer purchases based on regional trends, track shipments, automate social media messages, and catalog special events. Pretty soon, SteadyServ assured Reviewed.com in an email, users will be able to monitor bottle inventories.

 

Over time, all this data can provide an accurate depiction of customer demand.

 

So how does it work?

The service requires an initial 1-3 hour installation process that equips each keg in a given bar with an iKeg ring. These sensors, which are a touch smaller than the bottom of a standard keg, are then paired with the kegs using a proprietary RFID (radio-frequency identification) tag. A cellular uplink then begins transmitting weight and pressure data to the cloud; this informs users how much beer is left in each keg.

Because of the cellular uplink and installation process, bar owners can expect some significant-but-not-dealbreaking upfront fees. SteadyServ told us the installation fee is $499—plus a monthly data reporting fee, and a service charge each time a keg is depleted.

 

Given this commitment, the service is likely only to appeal to serious beer bars—you know, those watering holes with 50-odd draught lines, rotating cask selections, "tap takeover nights," and an inflated sense of self-importance among the patrons. But you've ever worked behind a bar (as this writer has), you know that something like this would certainly come in handy—especially if you're in charge of deliveries.

 

What about patrons?

If used correctly, it's likely bar patrons wouldn't notice much of a change in service, aside from a subtle decline in the number of times the bar runs out of specific beers. That said, with more accurate inventory data bar managers would presumably stay on top of sales trends and be able to better anticipate demand. Socially savvy bar owners might also use the platform to promote specials or keep patrons abreast of their stock (e.g., a tweet: “Only 14 pints left of special bourbon-aged vanilla reserve porter!”).

The service is still very much in its infancy, but SteadyServ is already looking to sync with point-of-sale systems, which will provide even more accurate sales data and inform owners about which brands or beers are selling best.

 

SteadyServ is part of a larger trend of equipping everyday “dumb” objects with sensors and mobile functionality. As the cost of sensors has dropped significantly in recent years, the simultaneous surge in mobile technology has allowed the Internet of Things to gain a foothold in modern homes and businesses. So far, these applications have served niche demands, but the implications are likely to effect everyone—even barflies.

 

By Tyler Wells Lynch February 24, 2014

 

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Hospitality Checkpoint LLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Hospitality Checkpoint LLC 2014

 


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

March 3, 2014 18:35 by administrator

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

 

Bartender Summary

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

-Indoor Bar

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

                                      

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

-Near Bar

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The outdoor bar farthest from the entrance was closed.

Manager Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Hospitality Checkpoint LLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Hospitality Checkpoint LLC 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      

Hospitality Checkpoint LLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Hospitality Checkpoint LLC 2014

 


BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Intoxicated Patrons, Free Drinks for Friends, Bartender Pockets Money

March 3, 2014 00:16 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT: Bar Theft, Intoxicated Patrons, Free Drinks for Friends, Bartender Pockets Money

 

Bartender Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

·       Bartender 1:  Xxxxx, Caucasian fem ale, about 5’5”tall, thin, long blond curled hair, wearing a black bustier, a black jacket and a black skirt. (Pictured)

·       Bartender 2:  Xxxxx, Caucasian female, about 5’4”tall, thin build, long straight blond hair worn up on the sides, wearing a black and gray striped shirt and a black skirt.

·       Bartender 3:  Caucasian male, about 5’7”tall, stocky athletic build, short light brown spiky hair, wearing a black shirt and black pants with  a sweat band and church key on his arm.

·       Bartender 4:  Caucasian male, about 5’9”tall, thin build, short dark hair, wearing black rimmed glasses, a black hoodie with the hood on and black pants.

·       Bartender 5:  Caucasian male, about 5’8”tall, medium build, short dark hair, wearing a black shirt and black pants.

·       Bartender 6:  Caucasian female, about 5’6”tall, long straight brown hair, wearing a black shirt and black skirt.

·       Bartender 7:  Xxxxx, Caucasian male, about 5’11”tall, large build, short dark hair, facial hair, dark rimmed glasses, wearing a dark shirt and pants.

·       Bartender 8:  Caucasian male, about 5’9”tall, medium build, short dark hair, wearing a black shirt and black pants

·       Bartender 9:  Caucasian female, about 5’7”tall, thin build, long dark curled hair, wearing a black bustier and a black skirt.

·       Bartender 10:  African American female, about 5’5”tall, thin build, long dark hair in a ponytail, wearing a black bustier and a black skirt.

In this summary the downstairs Radius bar will be referred to as bar 1, the downstairs Xxxxx bar will be bar 2 and the upstairs Xxxxx bar will be referred to as bar 3.  Bartender 10 was at the upstairs Xxxxx bar which was not evaluated due to the fact agent could not get to the bar as this area was extremely crowded.

Agent approached bartender 1 at bar 1 upon entering the establishment.  She looked over at agent, leaned forward and asked what she could get agent to drink.   Agent placed a drink order and Xxxxx quickly made the drink using the proper recipe.  She poured about a 6 count pour for this drink.  She served it to the agent and gave agent a price.  Agent gave her a card and she went to the POS rang in the drink and processed the payment.  She returned the credit card receipt in a clean black check presenter.

When agent’s drink was empty Xxxxx asked if agent would like another.  Agent said yes and she quickly made the drink and processed the payment in the same fashion as above.

Some observations made while at bar 1:

At 11:56pm Two Caucasian females that appeared to be Xxxxx’s friends approached bar 1 and she excitedly said hello to them.  She then poured each of them a double vodka cranberry tall.  No money was exchanged nor was anything rang up in the POS.

At 12:00am a Caucasian male and female couple approached the bar and the male shouted Xxxxx’s name.  He said he wanted a bottle of champagne and Xxxxx repeated the order.  He said yes and said “give it to me for $40” Xxxxx said she couldn’t do that.  She got the bottle of champagne, opened it and then served it to the couple.  She then took the $100.00 bill from the male patron and went to the POS where she entered an open charge of $45.00.  She then gave the male patron the proper amount of change back.  He tipped her what appeared to be a large sum and she put the cash into the tip jar.

At 12:03pm an African American male patron approached the bar.  Xxxxx happily waved to him and grabbed his hand.  They talked which agent could not over hear.  Agent then saw Xxxxx move to the well and proceed to make 12 double shots in tall glasses.  The shots were made with vodka, triple sec, cranberry juice, additional liquor and other ingredients agent could not recall.  The shots filled each glass 2/3 to ¾ full.  She made these shots in 4 separate batches and as she would make 3 she would handle them to the man and he would hand them back to the crowd standing behind him.  When she served the last shots Xxxxx waived off the man and then went to the POS.  Agent saw the screen display VOID then she tapped a square about 4 times and closed the screen.  Agent is unsure exactly what she put in the POS but it was not 12 double shots.   There was no money transferred, not even a tip that agent saw.

Around 12:08pm Xxxxx served 2 Caucasian females in their early 20’s standing at the bar.  She served them 5 drinks at one time; the drinks sat in front of the 2 girls and agent did not see the drinks distributed to anyone else.  About 3 minutes later Xxxxx served these same 2 girls each a fireball shot.  That is 7 drinks in 3 minutes for these 2 young ladies.  She did ring all these drinks into the POS.

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 12:24pm a Caucasian female approached Xxxxx and asked for a vodka cranberry.  Xxxxx poured the female Absolute without asking for a preference.  She then rang up the drink at the premium price.

Agent noticed all bartenders at this bar using cups or tins as ice scoops.  They all appeared to pour a 5-6 count pour per regular shots.

Bartender 4 was at the well facing the dance floor down from Xxxxx and Xxxxx.  Agent was wondering what his actual job was as he was seen standing behind the bar dancing and getting up on the reach in cooler to dance the majority of time agent was at the bar.  Around 12:20am agent finally saw him pour a couple of drinks for patrons.

Agent observed bartender 3 and bartender 5 from afar.  They appeared to ring in every drink and to stay busy.  Agent did not see either one with hands in the tip jar or waiving patrons off.

Agent then moved on to bar 2.  Agent approached the bar and was immediately greeted by bartender 6.  She was very friendly, said hello and asked agent what she could agent get to drink.  Bartender 6 quickly made and served agent’s drink.  She gave agent a price.  Agent gave her a credit card and she went to the POS, rang up the drink and gave agent the receipt to the agent in a clean black check presenter.  She thanked the agent.  Bartender 6 could not find an ingredient for agent’s drink so agent changed the drink.  Bartender 6 quickly adapted and made agent the second choice.

 

Observations made at bar 2.

Agent observed bartender 6 with other patrons and she seemed to serve all other patrons in the same fashion as agent.  Agent also observed bartender 8 from afar.  He appeared to ring in all drinks served.  They both were seen to pour a 4-6 count pour and used cups or tins as ice scoops.

Around 12:40am agent saw Xxxxx walk behind bar 2 and talk with bartender 8 and Xxxxx.

About 12:51am Xxxxx began breaking down his well by the patio entrance.  At around 12:57am 3 patrons walked up; 2 Caucasian males and 1 Caucasian female.  They appeared to know Xxxxx and he told them he was getting out of there.  He then served them 2 shots of Jager and a shot of Fire ball.  He did not move to the register or collect any money.

The patrons stayed at the bar and talked to Xxxxx.  At 1:00am Xxxxx gave each of them a bottle beer.  The blond male then gave Xxxxx money.  Xxxxx looked around and then put the money into his pocket.  Right after a Caucasian male patron walked up to the well and placed an order with Xxxxx.  Xxxxx made and served the drink and went to the POS.

Agent then went onto bar 3 upstairs.  Agent approached the bar and was immediately greeted by bartender 9.  She smiled at agent and asked what she could get agent to drink.  Agent placed an order.  Bartender 9 made the drink incorrectly and served it to agent.  She did not use a cocktail napkin.  Agent gave her a credit card and she rang up the drink and gave agent the credit card receipt in a clean black check presenter.  She said thank you.

Agent observed bartender 9 to ring in every drink she made.  She poured about a 5 count pour.  Her hands were never in the tip jar and she attempted to keep the bar top clean.  Bartender 9 appeared friendly and to do a good job.

Agent left through the Xxxxx side of the establishment when agent left Xxxxx was behind the bar at Xxxxx’s well and appeared to be working that well.

Security Summary

There were several members of security seen inside and outside the establishment; way too many for agent to describe.  They all presented well and were dressed professionally.  Agent personally spoke with the member at the VIP ropes who was a tall male with a bald head wearing a dark suit.  He seemed friendly enough and directed agent to the will-call table.  Upon leaving 2 different security members told agent to have a good night.

There were no problems that agent is aware of.

There were a lot of really drunk patrons noticed by the agent.  Agent witnessed two separate females in the ladies room who could barely stand.  One of them almost fell twice but her friend caught her.  Over serving was quite evident.  With the amount of people in the establishment this could be quite dangerous.           

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

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.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Food and Beverage Summary

At bar 1 agent ordered 2 identical rounds.

A dirty martini and Bud Light bottle.  The martini was made with the well vodka and olive juice from the fruit tray.  The martini glass was chilled and the martini well shaken.  It was served with 2 olives on a skewer.  The martini was cold and tasted fine.  The Bud Lights were served cold and fresh.  Agent was charged $16.00 for each round.

At bar 2 agent ordered a dirty martini.  Bartender 6 could not find any olive juice and had only poured the vodka in the tin.  Agent told her she could just make it a Cosmo.  She asked if agent was sure and agent said yes that it sounded good.  She then made the Cosmo and served it up in a chilled martini glass and garnished with a lime twist.  Agent was charged $6.00 for this drink.

At bar 3 agents ordered another Cosmo.  Bartender 9 filled a short glass with ice, poured well vodka and cranberry juice then put a straw in it and served it to agent.  This was a vodka cranberry and in no way a Cosmo other than sharing the vodka and cranberry in common.  If she did not have martini glasses agent feels she should have said something.  Agent was charged $8.00 for this drink.

There was quite a discrepancy in the difference of prices and at each bar agent was served well vodka, as this might be representative of the bartenders book boosting drinks for more profits.    

Michael Zenner - CEO      

Hospitality Checkpoint LLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Hospitality Checkpoint LLC 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      

 

Hospitality Checkpoint LLC

hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-1919

Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Hospitality Checkpoint LLC 2014


AZ Storytellers Project: In the Kitchen, Behind the Bar II

March 2, 2014 19:09 by administrator

AZ Storytellers Project: In the Kitchen, Behind the Bar II

By Megan Finnerty The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:49 PM

Crazy customers, meaningful meatloafs, pilfered pies, tacky tippers. Chefs and bartenders always have great stories.


But diners usually have to sneak into the kitchen (not always recommended) or stay after hours (not always possible) to hear them.


So on Monday, March 10, The Republic invites you to join us for Arizona Storytellers Project, a night of tales from the kitchen and bar. We’ll gather at Crudo in Phoenix to celebrate some of the Valley’s most creative culinary and bartending talents as they share stories of cooking capers, destroyed dishes and tasty triumphs.


Crudo chef/owner Cullen Campbell will serve the night’s dinner. The menu includes a first course of crudo with housemade vinaigrette; an entree choice of vegetarian risotto or short ribs with olive oil mashed potatoes and root vegetables; and a dessert of crespelle with berry compote and chocolate drizzle.


Guests will hear first-person stories from five tellers: Bar Crudo owner and mixologist Micah Olson; Blue Hound Kitchen & Cocktails chef Stephen Jones; Blue Hound head mixologist Stephanie Teslar; Gadzooks Enchiladas & Soup owner Aaron Pool; and Milagro Grill owner Reed Johnson.


Since June 2011, Arizona Storytellers Project has fostered community through nights of true stories, told by the people who make Arizona such a compelling, fascinating and still-wild state. On these nights, community members share first-person stories on a theme for about five to eight minutes.


Proceeds from the March 10 event will support The Republic’s journalism training and education program.
________________________________________
Arizona Storytellers Project: In the Kitchen, Behind the Bar II
Where: Crudo, 3603 E. Indian School Road, Phoenix.
When: Monday, March 10. Doors open at 6. Storytelling begins at 7 p.m.
Admission: $75 at tickets.azcentral.com. Get a $20 discount by entering promo code “Food 14” at checkout. Ticket covers three-course dinner, tax and tip and serves as your event reservation. There are 65 tickets available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Details: storytellers.azcentral.com, 602-444-8770.


BARTENDER THEFT: Stolen Money Laundered through Tip Jar

November 28, 2012 20:31 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

The agent observed the following bartenders the evening of June 29th:

-xxxxxx Bar

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian female, 5’10’, medium build, straight dark brown hair pulled back in a bun

                                                                      

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

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

-xxxxx Bar

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

 

 

 

 

The agent initially sat at the indoor bar at 23:23.  At that time, all three bartenders were doing what they could to drum up business where possible, though there was about one bartender for every three to four guests.  This meant that a fair amount of conversing was happening, both among bartenders, and between bartenders and guests.

Even so, Xxxxx approached the agent immediately, extending a warm greeting and offering something to drink.

As soon as the agent placed an order, Xxxxx set about making it, using the ice scoop to prepare the drinks and using beverage napkins.  These were the practices each time a drink was made at the inside bar.  She also rang the order in immediately and correctly, which was also standard practice at the indoor bar.

The only shortcoming observed among all bartenders was a failure to attempt to upsell to a more expensive liquor.  This is an easy way of raising check totals without adding significant additional effort that all staff should be encouraged to do.

When the agent approached the outdoor bar farthest from the main entrance, Bartender 4 was not quite so quick to greet the agent, taking four minutes to do so.  Also, Bartender 4 was never seen to use a beverage napkin, and was once observed scooping ice directly into a plastic cup which is a health concern.

Also, Bartender 4 was a bit slow about offering additional drinks to those guests whose had gone empty.  For example, at 10:54, the agent’s glass was empty, but Bartender 4 didn’t offer another drink until 11:03.

Another way in which bar performance was less than ideal was the way bartenders rang in drinks.  For example, they usually rang drinks in immediately after making them.  When extremely busy, though, they even tended to leave one meta-tab open for cash orders, in which they would add each guest’s round, then input the amount of cash handed over.  This method shows a screen with very small text stating the amount of change due, and creates an excellent opportunity for padding the cost by a few dollars in order to illegally increase tips.  Agent found this alarming.

This would not have been a  huge concern but for the fact that the agent observed Bartender 4 ring in multiple “no sales” at times when he produced drinks and put cash in the drawer, including at 11:13 and 11:35.  What’s more, both the “no sale” rings were when Bartender 4 was given cash and told to keep the change. It is suspected that the drawer may be used to launder stolen money.

Also alarming, the agent never received a receipt from any bartenders the entire evening, and even though both bartenders served the agent a draft beer and a well drink, the quoted price was $11.25 inside and $11.50 outside.

                  

The agent also never observed any bartender securing a credit card in order to assure the payment of a tab without the guest offering the card first.

No bartender was ever seen to check the identification of a single guest.  This was in spite of the fact that much of the crowd that evening was young, including several people that were clearly under 30.

Similarly, the  outside bar area had a group of three obviously intoxicated people, who  were slurring, red, and sweating profusely.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this is a serious source of liability to the establishment, as any damages caused to either any individual or any property by a minor who has been served in a restaurant can be considered as grounds for revoking an establishment’s liquor license.  Certainly, this development would be disastrous for ownership, but it is the agent’s opinion that it is worth mentioning this to the staff and reminding them that such a scenario would involve them losing their livelihood too.   Additionally, under New Jersey’s dram shop legislation, such a scenario would also leave the establishment and the individual employee that served a minor or intoxicated person personally liable for damages caused by that person.

Similarly, there were some small problems with correct pouring controls by Bartender 4.  On one occasion at 11:03, Bartender 4 was making a rum and Coke for a guest, and poured it with a 6-count (4 count = 1 1/2 oz).  When the guest asked what the well rum was, Bartender 4 asked “Why?  You don’t like it?”  Then said “There’s a solution to that,” as he added another 3-count of Bacardi to the drink.  This was never rung in as a comp, and when all was said and done, the guest had more than a double for the cost of a shot of well liquor.  Moreover, this is a dangerous amount of alcohol for one drink and possesses a liquor liability issue.

Similarly, at 12:10, Xxxxx told a guest that a soft drink was on her, but was never seen to ring it in as a comp.

It did not seem that Bartender 4 knew the guest, rather, this excessive pour seemed to be a result of inattention and willingness to give away product.  This is a problem that could be remedied by making sure that all bottles, even those who which have irregular  sizes and shapes, have precision metered  pour spouts for the sake of accuracy.

What’s more, a staff member (pictured) was sitting at the bar from 10:52 until after the agent left the area at 11:07.  The entire time that she was there, Bartender 4 was pouring her eight ounce pours of  red wine from Salmon Run,  which he would place on the side of the bar nearest him, so that she would have to reach over the bar to take each drink and put it back each time, as seen in the photo at left.  This made the agent think that they had some reason to hide this activity, and the fact that the agent placed the drink there without it being requested made the agent think this was something that they had done before.  Before the agent left, Bartender 4 filled her drink a total of  three times, a total of nearly five glasses of wine. The agent never observed Bartender 4 accounting for these drinks in a comp or shift-drink ticket on the

POS.

 

At one point, another staff member (pictured) was sitting with them, and was drinking a soft drink, though it was impossible to tell if anything alcoholic had been mixed in.  At one point, a third employee approached them, saying “Alex, are you checked out yet,” to which one of the two employees responded “No.”     

At 11:27, Bartender 4 was seen drinking something a bit lighter than the color of cola from a plastic pint.  He kept the drink on the service well station.  Agent suspects an alcohol drink was being consumed; however, cannot substantiate this claim.

Similarly, there was an irregularity between bartenders and servers at the service well, as at 10:31 a server walked behind the bar, an unnecessary breakdown of the bar controls, and one that bartenders should be motivated to avoid, as any blame for a problem arising from a server behind the bar would ultimately be their fault.

                                            

Additionally, all bartenders’ appearance was always professional and hygienic, with the only exception being that they were never seen washing their hands.

Food and Beverage Summary

The agent and associate started off at the indoor bar with a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and a well gin and tonic. The former was served in a stemmed, fluted Pilsener glass, and the latter in a stemmed goblet with plenty of ice and lime, but no straw or drink stirrer.  The gin and tonic was made with the appropriate proportions, and was extremely refreshing and flavorful.  The pale ale also tasted just as expected, and was poured perfectly by Xxxxx.  IT was clearly fresh and well handled.

The agent’s party left the indoors and seated themselves at the bar farthest from the main entrance.   nearest the TouchTunes machine.  The agent was waited on by Server 1, who seemed to be the only server on duty.  There, they ordered a Harpoon India Pale Ale and a rum and Diet Coke. Both drinks came in translucent plastic pints, the beer with a perfect head, and the cocktail with ample ice.  IPA also tasted very fresh and flavorful, and showed no signs of age or oxidation.  It was excellent.

The cocktail was the rum and coke described in the “Bartenders” section above.  Aside from being stronger than expected, the drink tasted strongly of artificial vanilla flavor, which was why the agent asked about the well rum offering. That was when Bartender 4 “[solved] the problem” by pouring in nearly another full serving of Bacardi.

If they are giving away alcohol to strangers, and one who happens to be a bar theft integrity spotter, management can interpolate the problem from there.

All beverages were traditionally presented in intact glassware, at the proper temperatures and with all expected flavor characteristics.  What’s more, the agent was satisfied with both the breadth of the establishment’s selection, and especially with the value that it offered.

Because of the traffic the agent encountered on the way to the evaluation, by the time the outdoor bar nearest the main entrance was was approached, it was 11:30, and they were already closing.

 

Manager Summary

·       Bar Manager : Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair, average build, yellow short-sleeved collared shirt  and black slacks (pictured at right)

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

·       General Manager: Caucasian female, 5’9”, short graying brown hair, medium build, sky blue short-sleeved collared shirt and black slacks (pictured at right)

 


 

 

In general, the agent’s observations of the managers were brief and fleeting.  The first and only glimpse of the Bar manager was at 10:28.  At that time, the manager was standing beside the indoor bar, drinking a Long Trail Belgian White Ale (pictured at right).  Immediately after finishing it within two minutes, the Bar Manager stepped behind the bar, ringing something up in the POS.  This is a cause for concern, as it is a best practice not to have anyone who has been drinking behind the bar.  In a dram shop suit or identification compliance sting, this would not reflect well on the establishment.

The Patio Manager was seen several times outside, and was generally either talking to employees or just taking the scene in.  He was not present for the period in which Bartender 4 was pouring free house wine for an employee on the patio.

Finally, the General Manager was observed at 11:57 when she brought out a new cash drawer to Xxxxx, with whom she exchanged it for the older drawer.

The only major criticism of the managers was that they completely failed to address the two problems of obviously intoxicated guests being served and employees drinking at the establishment.  In fact, the Bar manager was himself drinking the only time the agent saw him.

There were no guest problems at any point that required manager intervention, but it is also worth mentioning that the agent never observed any of the managers communicating with any guests.

At 11:34, the agent returned to the indoor bar, ordering a Long Trail White Ale and a Diet Coke.  Both were served in fluted, stemmed Pilseners, and the soft drink came with ice.  Both beverages tasted pleasant and expected. Xxxxx declined to charge the agent for the soft drink

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


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

November 28, 2012 20:11 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

Food and Beverage Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012