BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

• Bartender 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’4” with xxxxxxxxx brown hair and xxxx xxx tattoos on her zzz wearing a red tank top, short jean shorts and xxxxxxxxx.
• Bartender 2:  Caucasian female approximately 5’7” with brown hair and a xxxx piercing near xxxxx wearing a white midriff baring tank top, short jean shorts and a xxxxxxxxxxx.  She was overheard being called Xxxxx.

The Agent and Associate took a seat at the bar and weren’t greeted until three minutes later which was unreasonable in the Agent’s opinion to due to the lull in business at the time we sat at the bar.  Bartender 1 approached and asked if we had been helped.  We stated we had not.  She placed beverage napkins in front of us and asked what we wanted to drink.  A drink order was placed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She returned with the drinks quickly and asked if we wanted to start a tab.  The Agent provided a card to secure the tab and it was placed behind the bar in an xxxxxxxxxxx which made the Agent feel that the card would be secure and not easily misplaced. 

Bartender 1 cleared a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx from in front of us but did not wipe the bar top down which left peanut shell remnants from the previous patron scattered along the bar top where we were now trying to enjoy our beverages which was unsightly and unpleasant in the Agent’s opinion.

The Associate’s beverage was empty for six minutes before being offered a new one by Bartender 2.  She made the drink quickly and added it to our tab (see food and beverage summary for details).  Later in the evaluation another round was placed with Bartender 1.  The drinks were made quickly and the Agent requested the tab be closed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She ran the card for payment and delivered the receipt quickly.  No itemized receipt was present.  She thanked us with a slight smile.

Overall, the Agent feels the bartenders were pleasant but not very friendly.  Neither bartender introduced herself by name in case we needed anything.  Also, they seemed to only personally converse with regulars and patrons they already knew which is ineffective towards building new clientele for the establishment in the Agent’s opinion.  Both bartenders lacked in attentiveness in the Agent’s opinion.  Guests would often have to request a new beverage as opposed to the staff offering new beverages when levels were low.  Also, glassware remained on the bar for significant amounts of time after guests were finished before it was eventually cleared.

Both girls were observed on their cell phones during the evaluation.  They kept them near the terminal and were texting and checking them often. 

The Agent witnessed several possible theft and integrity issues with both bartenders during the evaluation.

At 4:53 PM Bartender 2 served a guest a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.  This guest will be referred to as guest A as he will be mentioned again regarding staff not ringing in drinks.

At 5:00 PM a guest approached the bar top and stated they were not satisfied with their Bloody Mary.  Bartender 1 made her a new cocktail and did not report to the POS to account for the new beverage or place the unwanted beverage on a spill or comp tab.

At 5:01 PM Bartender 1 served two guests who had already closed out two shots of Rumplemintz.  When they got ready to leave, they asked what they owed her for the shots and she stated they were good.  Also, these shot glasses remained in the bar top for 15 minutes before being cleared which is excessive in the Agent’s opinion.

At 5:12 PM Bartender 2 made a shot for a guest on the patio side of the bar and did not report to the POS.

At 5:16 PM Bartender 2 served one patron two pints of beer and two bottles of beer which is a violation of the liquor law as one person cannot be served more than 32 ounces of beer at one time.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

At 5:17 PM Bartender 2 served guest A a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.

At 5:21 PM Bartender 2 was observed pouring a six count of Crown Royal into a Styrofoam cup for a guest, She did not collect money for the beverage which is a bar theft occurrence. The guest then left the premise with the alcohol drink in hand, which is a violation of the AZ liquor Law.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle.

Providing alcohol for customers to leave the premise with is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management immediately.

At 5:22 PM the door greeter asked Bartender 2 to pour three shots of Jack for guests he seemed to know personally.  She served the guests the shots and they gave her a ten dollar bill which went into the tip jar.  She blew them kisses as they left.  No move was made to the POS to account for the drinks on a comp tab.

At 5:34 PM Bartender 2 served guest A a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.

At 5:39 PM the door greeter had brought in a check presenter from outside.  Bartender 1 and Bartender 2 were discussing the tip and the Agent overheard the received a $20 tip on a $6 dollar tab which is suspicious in the Agent’s opinion.  Then, Bartender 2 was overheard stating, “Great, we’re going to get shit for this one.”

At 5:45 PM Bartender 1 poured a seven count Jack Daniels into a Styrofoam cup and gave the cup to a female guest that was on the patio.  She did not report to the POS. Customer left premise with the beverage shortly afterwards.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle

At 5:56 PM Bartender 1 served a vodka cranberry to a female companion of guest A and did not report to the POS.

At 6:02 PM a Hispanic female in a Xxxxx Xxxxx shirt came behind the bar.  The Agent did not have a view of what she was doing but left the from behind the bar with a Styrofoam cup.  She was observed giving a “lock it up and throw away the key” gesture to Bartender 2.  The instance seemed suspicious.  Also, the Agent recommends only on duty bartenders and barbacks be allowed to come behind the bar.

At 6:06 PM Bartender 2 made the same Hispanic female three shots and did not report to the POS.

Both girls were using the center terminal at the north end of the bar which the Agent had an unobstructed view of.  The Agent is unsure if any of the aforementioned drinks were eventually accounted for on guest or comp tabs.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

Bartender Summary

• Bartender 1- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her early thirties, with long xXXXXXX hair and a slim build.  She wore a xxxx xxxx hat, a teal tank top, and jean shorts.  She had visible tattoos on her XXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXXX.
• Bartender 2- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her late twenties, with short curly xXXXXXX hair and a petite frame.  She wore a xxx cowboy hat, a black tank, black jacket, jean shorts, and knee high xxxx socks.
• **Off Duty Bartender- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her early thirties, with medium length XXX hair and XXXXXXXXX.  She was approximately 5’5” in height, and wore a black XXXXXXX XXXXX sweat suit.  Possibly a manager, as she had keys to the registers and used them several times.

Agent and Associate took a seat at the bar, and were quickly greeted by Bartender 1.  Bartender 1 did not offer her name at any time.  She placed cocktail napkins on the bar top, and asked for a drink order.  Bartender 1 seemed very knowledgeable of the drink specials offered.  

She was very friendly and personable with all the patrons at the bar, though it seemed easier to get her attention if one was a “regular.”  There were several instances in which Agent and Associate had empty glasses for several minutes before being noticed by a bartender.  Agent recommends employees implement the 75% rule, in which employees offer additional beverages to patrons whose drinks become less than 75% full.  This will prevent customers from being left without a beverage, as well as possibly boosting sales.  

Agent also noted that Bartender 1 used cash from the tip jar to make change for a customer.  Agent recommends employees refrain from handling cash in the tip jars in order to prevent confusion or the mishandling of monies.

When preparing the beverages, Bartender 1 used the designated ice scoop.  Her pour count was inconsistent throughout the evaluation, as it varied from as little as a two count, to as heavy as an eight count.  Agent suggests all employees use a constant 1 ½ ounce pour to maintain consistency and accuracy among all prepared beverages.

She was fairly consistent in entering beverages into the POS after preparation. There were, however, several instances which warrant the managers’ attention:

At 4:26 PM Bartender 1 prepared six shots of honey-colored liquor from a chilled bottle.  She walked five of the shots over to Off Duty Bartender, and left the sixth shot next to the POS system.  At no time did she attempt to enter the shots into the POS system.

At 4:36 PM Bartender 1 acknowledges a male customer with who she is familiar with.  She mixes him a cocktail and places it in front of the man.  He asks what the beverage is, since he did not give a verbal order.  She explains the drink and does not make an attempt to enter the beverage into the POS or collect any money.

At 4:42 Bartender 1 prepared an eight count Vodka and Redbull in a Styrofoam cup that Security 1 had been drinking from.  Agent found this disturbing for several reasons.  This is an excessive pour, as it was in excess of 3 oz of alcohol.  Preparing an alcoholic beverage in a Styrofoam cup can lead to the beverage being removed from the premises, whether on purpose or accident.  Security 1 was still on duty at the time and is an ADLLC violation.  This beverage was also not entered into the POS system which is a bartender theft occurrence.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

At approximately 5:15 PM Bartender 1 gave a bottle of Bud Light to a male customer, and did not make an attempt to enter the beer into the POS system.

Bartender 2 seemed preoccupied (mostly with her cell phone), and offered most of her attention to the Off Duty Bartender and her friends.  When preparing her beverages, she did use the designated ice scoop to retrieve drinks from the well.  Her pour count was also inconsistent.  Though most of her beverages were prepared with the accurate four count (1 ½ ounce) pour, there were several instances in which singles were ordered but doubles were prepared.

Agent was also concerned with the placement of Bartender 2’s bottle opener, as she stored it in between her shorts and bare bottom.  This is an AZ Health Code violation, as well as unprofessional.  Agent recommends bottle openers be stored in the pocket or attached to a retractable clip on the pants.

Agent was very concerned with Bartender 2’s inconsistency in entering beverages into the POS.  Several instances in particular stood out, and are listed below.

At 4:16 PM Bartender 2 prepared a Crown Royal cocktail in a Styrofoam cup for a customer.  The customer had already been drinking from this cup, so Agent assumed this was not the first cocktail prepared in the Styrofoam container.  The customer, dressed in all black attire, then walked around on the patio, as well as on the side walk outside of the establishment, with the cup.  This is an AZ Liquor Code violation, as open containers holding alcohol are not permitted to be removed from the premises.  Furthermore, Bartender 2 made no attempt to enter the beverage in the POS system which is a bartender theft occurrence.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle.

At approximately 4:20 PM Bartender 2 prepared three Vodka Redbull cocktails, and gave them to friends of the Off Duty Bartender.  She did not attempt to enter the cocktails after delivering the drinks.

At 4:25 PM Bartender 2 handed a Bud Light Bottle to a male customer, and did not move to the POS system to enter it.

Around 4:30 PM Bartender 2 prepared three yellow shots (Agent assumed they were White Gummi Bears).  She handed them to a group of customers at the bar. The patrons asked what they were, as if they had not ordered them. After drinking the shots, patrons thanked Bartender 2 and gave her “high-fives.”  Though Bartender 2 eventually migrated to the POS, Agent was unable to confirm if the shots were entered, as other beverages had been prepared and delivered in between that time.

Both Bartenders’ 1 & 2 habitually played on their cell phones in blatant view of customers.  Though Bartender 2 only used her phone while stationed at the POS, Bartender 1 used her cell phone near the POS and in front of customers while conversing with the patrons.  They seemed to be texting and playing on their Facebook sites.  Agent felt this to be extremely unprofessional.

At the end of the evaluation, the check was placed in a clean presenter, though it did have an error.  (Please refer to Beverage Summary for further details.) Bartenders 1 & 2 thanked Agent and Associate and said goodbye.

Agent did not witness either bartender drinking or smoking, though Bartender 2 seemed to be consuming cough drops.

Security Summary

• Security 1- XXXXXXX male, in his mid-thirties, with XXXXX XXX hair, a XXXXX, XXX, and thinly XXXXX XXXX.  He had a large, muscular build, and wore a black staff shirt under a XXXXXXXXt.

Upon approaching the establishment, Agent and Associate were nonchalantly stopped by Security 1 and asked for identification.  He did not use Agent and Associate’s name when observing the identification. Security 1 seemed unfriendly, and did not tell Agent and Associate to enjoy the visit, or anything at all for that matter.

As previously mentioned in Bartender Summary, Agent witnessed Security 1 drinking Vodka Redbull while working.  This is very unprofessional, as well as a safety risk and against the law. This is a dram shop issue that should be addressed by management.  If the security staff is intoxicated, they are unreliable for maintaining safety and upholding liquor laws, not to mention should something terrible happen and it is discovered that security was alcohol impaired, it could lead to a serious dram shop problem.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

Security 1 seemed very distracted by the patrons congregating on the patio. Security 1 spent a majority of the evaluation visiting with the customers, and Agent did not note any time in which Security 1 walked through the bar to monitor the situation.  Agent only noted a handful of times in which he actually entered the facility, and that was to get a refill on his cocktail and to check the score of the game.

When Agent and Associate left, Security 1 did not acknowledge the departure.

Beverage Summary

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Lastly, Associate ordered a XXXXXXX from Bartender 1.  The XXXXX was served ice cold and was full-flavored.  This beer, however, was not entered into the POS system after delivery, and was not on the final tab. Giving away alcohol drinks to a trained bar theft spotter, without prompting,  leads that Agent to assume that a serious problem or culture of theft exists at this establishment.

Management Summary

• Off Duty Bartender/Manager- XXXXXXX xXXXXXX, in her early thirties, with xxxxxx and xxxx xxx.  She was approximately xxxx in height, and wore a black XXXXXXX xxxxx sweat suit.  Possibly a manager, as she had keys to the registers and used them several times.

Though it did not appear that there was a manager on duty, there was an off duty employee that Agent surmised to be a manager. Agent was deeply concerned by the woman’s behavior during the evaluation.  Off Duty Bartender/Manager was seated on the xxxend of the bar on the xxxx when Agent arrived.  It was clear that she had already been drinking, as there were several cocktail glasses in front of her, one of which she was drinking from. (A pint glass containing an orange colored cocktail.)

Shortly after Agent arrived, Agent noticed Off Duty Bartender/Manager get up from her bar stool and walk around to the server’s station.  She then bent underneath the bar and started to handle the register.  Agent found this inappropriate, as no cash handling should be done by someone under the influence of alcohol.  Approximately fifteen minutes later, she returned behind the bar and pulled out the cash drawer again.

Around 4:20 PM Agent heard a yell coming from the Off Duty Bartender/Manager’s direction.  Agent witnessed the off duty employee crawl up onto the bar and start smashing glass beer bottles into the trash can.  Agent could not believe the behavior of the off duty employee.  Regardless if the woman was a manager or not, this makes for a very unprofessional appearance.

Off Duty Bartender/Manager remained drinking at the bar the entire evaluation.  Many of the free drinks Agent witnessed bartenders giving away went to Off Duty Bartender/Manager’s party.

Because the manager performed an "Act of Working" in the eyes of the law that would be considered on duty and had this Agent been an ADLLC officer this would have been an ADLLC violation.              

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2011

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

• Bartender 1 – Caucasian male with xxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx wearing xxxxxxxxxxxxxx shirt and xxxxxx with tattoos on xxxxxx.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36-601.01. Smoke-free Arizona act

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum:

Food and Beverage Summary

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

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

The specialty cocktails ordered were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum:

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

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

This is an ADLLC Violation.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2011

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

·       Bartender:  Female, 5’5”, Caucasian, in her twenties, with an average build and long, brown hair worn in a ponytail.  She wore a v-neck tee shirt.

The guest volume was minimal at the bar throughout the visit, and the agent observed Bartender from afar.

A female bar patron with long blond hair sat at the left end of the bar throughout most of the visit.  She appeared to be a liquor rep or known to the staff in some way.  She carried a bag from which she drew three colorful bottles of what appeared to be tequila.  Throughout the visit, she had the bottles on the bar and poured shots from them that either she drank, or she gave to the staff and other guests to sample.

Several times, Bartender presented the patron with bottles from behind the bar.  At around 7:43pm, the patron poured from one such bottle—the agent believed to be Cointreau—while seated at the bar, and returned the bottle to Bartender to replace behind the bar. 

This pour did not appear to be recorded nor added to a tab anywhere and therefore is a bartender theft occurrence, and Bartender sipped from the resulting drink. 

Bartender continued to drink alcoholic beverages throughout the visit, in violation of Arizona Liquor Laws.  From the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 4, Chapter 3, which governs the Arizona Department of Liquor Licensing and Control:

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 8:13pm, Bartender took a drink from another shot glass.  At 8:31pm, she drank again, and took a glass still more than half full with an orange mixture and placed in low behind the bar, quite obviously to drink later. 

At 8:33pm, she was observed to take another drink.

With respect to other bar guests, Bartender appeared to follow proper procedures.  She rang in and cashed out items immediately and properly.  She also delivered establishment-standard pours and followed proper service bar procedures.

Bartender used her down time behind the bar to polish glassware.  She also went out from behind the bar to wait on high-top tables across from the bar.

The aforementioned blond patron was presented with a tab prior to her departure.  The agent believes she had eaten dinner, as well as been drinking.  She departed with at least three open liquor bottles.

Also from the Arizona Revised Statutes:

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle.

Bartender observed the agent and his associate as they departed the establishment, smiling and thanking them.

Even were the patron a liquor representative, her actions during the visit should be cause for concern for the establishment.  Aside from being in violation of Arizona Liquor Laws and contributing to the violation thereof by staff members, the activities created a risky and unprofessional environment.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic . 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2011

Defense Attorneys win dram shop case because their client had proper safe guards in place and a good system of care for alcohol service. This verdict specifically exemplifies the need for good alcohol servicng policies and procedures. If they DID'T have this in place, then they most likely would have suffered $5,000,000.00 in damages (see red below).

DRAM SHOP NON-AWARD:

Hartline Dacus Attorneys Win Defense Verdict for Adult Entertainment Company

This jury trial ended in victory for the Defendant after attorneys of the firm successfully defended a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment in a case involving an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man.

Dallas, TX (PRWEB) June 30, 2011

Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP today announced a jury trial victory after attorneys Darrell Barger, Brian Rawson and Stephanie Roark successfully defended their client in a two week Dram Shop liability trial in Harris County, Texas. The client is a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment with nightclubs in major markets across the U.S. According to court documents, the case involved an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man in 2007. The driver of the vehicle was an adult entertainer, who was driving home from work at the defendant’s nightclub when the accident occurred. She had a blood-alcohol level almost four times the legal limit, and eventually pled guilty to felony intoxication manslaughter. Relatives of the victim filed suit against the nightclub, alleging the defendant was negligent in continuing to serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, and then allowing her to drive home from the defendant’s establishment.

“While we certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for the family of the victim in this tragic accident, we were confident that our client had not been negligent in this situation. We knew we needed to mount a strong defense to prove that the company played no part in the criminal actions of this independent contractor,” said Darrell Barger, a partner in the Corpus Christi office of Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP.  The jury heard testimony from a variety of expert witnesses and was presented with a reconstruction of the accident. The plaintiff’s counsel claimed the victim experienced unimaginable conscious pain and suffering when he was struck by the entertainer’s vehicle and asked the jury to award $5 million plus punitive damages to the family of the victim.

Defense counsel argued that their client had safeguards in place to prevent serving alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated, as well as to prevent their patrons from driving under the influence of alcohol. The defense also brought in expert witness to establish that alcohol played no role in the accident. After hearing testimony from both sides, the Harris County jury of seven men and five women deliberated and returned a verdict for the defense on June 15, 2011.

SOURCE: Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP

Cause Number: 2009-07180
Court: 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas

BARTENDER THEFT

Bartender Summary

• Bartender 1:  Female, 5’4”, Caucasian, in her thirties, with a medium build and long, straight blond hair.  She wore jeans and a baggy blue hooded sweatshirt.

• Bartender 2:  Male, 5’7”, Caucasian, in his early twenties, with an average build and shaggy brown hair worn under a knit cap.  He wore a tee shirt.  The receipt he provided at the end of the visit gave his name as Xxxxx; patrons referred to him as Xxxxx.

• Barback (?):  Male, 5’7”, Caucasian, in his twenties, with tattoos and spacers of approximately 5/8”-gauge in his ears.  The agent could not determine whether he was an on-duty employee, off-duty employee, or just a friend of the staff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both bartenders kept up with washing and restocking glassware.

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

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

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

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2011

BARTENDER THEFT:

Facility Summary

The agent approached the facility from xxx Road.  It was difficult to find the establishment, despite directions, given its location facing a street interior to the shopping plaza, and the lack of signage around the perimeter.  Only after asking directions a second time was the agent able to locate the facility.

A few parking spaces are available in front of the building, while the majority of the parking is to the rear.  Large signage hangs above the rear entrance, as well as in front.

A patio along the side of the building was barren, with no seating and clearly not in use, aside from as a smokers’ haven.  One guest was observed being locked out, unable to get back in through the patio door from which she exited.  A retractable door to what appeared to be a bar was down.  An ash urn on the patio was filled with butts and trash.

The windows along the front of the facility were dirty and in need of cleaning, with cobwebs accumulated in the corners.  The sidewalk in front of the entrance had some trash, and the covered area immediately in front of the large entrance doors had trash and debris, and was very barren.  A large foot mat would serve both as an appealing aesthetic as well as to keep the area clean.

The agent was struck by the overwhelming smell of marijuana outside the entrance.  He again smelled the drug when inside the establishment; please refer to the Cocktail Summary for details.

The entrance delivers guests into a very large room with a very large bar in the middle.  High-top tables surround most areas of the bar, while a dance floor and stage are to the far right of the room, and dining tables and booths are to the far left.  A host desk is immediately in front of the entrance, and a small store for branded merchandise is around the left corner.

An enclosed corral with a mechanical bull is around the right corner from the entrance, across from the bar.  An employee manned the desk next to the bull, rides on which were apparently offered for a fee.  At no time during the visit did a DJ or MC use the microphone to announce the evening’s events, any specials, any upcoming events, or call attention to the mechanical bull.  Given the large size of the establishment and various options for entertainment, it would be useful to have such announcements.

The temperature inside the establishment was cool, particularly in the cocktail areas closest to the stage, where it was cold enough to be uncomfortable.

Televisions hang above the bar and throughout the room, with three large screens above the stage.  The screens broadcast sporting events—mostly football.  A large screen above the mechanical bull showed country music videos that did not coincide with the music playing over the audio system.  The music was at a volume appropriate for the size of the room and number of guests; however, when the band began playing, at 9:05pm, the volume was quite excessive, and it was difficult to hear someone sitting right next to you.

The table tops and floors were clean, and all furniture appeared in good condition.  The bar top was wet in areas; when asked to clean it, the bartenders left the dirty rags sitting on top of the bar.  This is an AZ Health Code Violation. Flyers for upcoming events were scattered on the bar top.

Restrooms are located along the rear wall of the facility, to the left of the rear entrance.  The facilities were large, with many stalls and sinks, and had a simple yet appealing décor.  One of the sinks in the women’s restroom was not functioning, but the remainder of the fixtures in both restrooms appeared operational.  Most stalls had paper trash littering the floor.  The restrooms were attended late in the visit by pleasant, friendly employees.

The attendant in the women’s restroom was a female of Asian descent.  She sat on a backed stool blocking the hand dryers and handed out folded paper towels.  She was pleasant and informed guests of fixtures that were broken.

Cocktail Summary

·       Cocktail 1:  Female, 5’6”, Caucasian, in her twenties, with a slender build, blond hair, and wide-set eyes.  The receipt she provided gave her name as Xxxxxx.

·       Cocktail 2:  Female, 5’5”, Caucasian, in her late twenties, with a slender, muscular build and dark hair worn in a long pageboy.  She was very tanned and wore a black tank top; her physique and the way in which she carried herself suggested she is an athlete.

Xxxxxx approached the agent and his associate six minutes after they were seated in the cocktail area.  She gave a quick greeting and asked if she could get them something to drink. 

She did not require identification (under 30) and did not suggest any upsell options.

Before leaving the table with the order, Xxxxxx offered a menu and asked whether the agent and his associate wanted to keep a tab with her.  She required to hold a credit card to keep the tab. 

She did not introduce herself.

Xxxxxx quickly returned with the drinks, and checked on the agent and his associate appropriately.  She was prompt in delivery of all items and visible on the floor even when not in proximity of the agent’s table.

Both cocktail servers appeared to check in with their tables in appropriate intervals.  They were also quick to clear glassware and tables after guests departed.

At one of Xxxxxx’s approach to the table, the agent and his associate were immediately overwhelmed by the smell of marijuana.  They smell did not appear to be caused by the proximity of any other person.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

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

When the agent requested his tab, Xxxxxx first confirmed he wanted it on the card, and then delivered an itemized receipt, two credit card slips, the agent’s card, and a pen, all in a check presenter that contained no promotional material.  She thanked the agent and his associate; she did not return to the table to collect the check prior to the agent and his associate departing.

The agent ordered a non-alcoholic beverage when requesting the tab as an pre-text integrity check, as such items are often omitted in such situations, either unintentionally or in hopes of garnering a larger tip.  The item was included appropriately on the tab and lending credit to this server’s integrity.

Bartender Summary

·       Bartender 1:  Female, 5’0”, Caucasian, in her twenties, with an average build and long, straight, very dark hair.  She wore jean shorts and a black tank top.  The receipt she provided at the end of the visit identified her as Xxxxxx.

·       Bartender 2:  Female, 5’4”, Caucasian, in her twenties, with an average build and short, blond hair.  She wore jean shorts and a yellow tank top tied up in the back.       

·       Bartender 3:  Male, 5’10”, Caucasian, in his twenties, with a slender yet muscular build and what appeared to be a bald or shaved head underneath a cap.  He wore jeans and a black tee shirt.

·       Bartender 4:  Female, 5’5”, Caucasian, in her twenties, with an average build and dark hair with highlights.  She chewed gum with an open mouth.

·       Bartender 5:  Male, 5’10”, Caucasian with a dark complexion, a bald or shaved head, and a very short beard.  He had a muscular build and chewed gum.  He worked the end of the bar closest to the dining area.

·       Bartender 6:  Male, 5’11”, Caucasian, in his early twenties, with a slender, muscular build, a round face, and short, dark hair.  He had many tattoos on his arms and worked the end of the bar closest to the stage.

·       Bartender 7:  Male, 5’8”, Caucasian, in his late twenties or early thirties, with a muscular build, very short, dark hair, deep-set eyes, and many tattoos.  He had a beard and a small goatee patch under his bottom lip.  He wore a black tee shirt that appeared to be an advertisement for UFC fighter xxxxxx xxx.

·       Bartender 8:  Male, 6’1”, Caucasian, in his twenties, with a blond buzz cut and a lean build.  He wore jeans and a black button-down shirt.

·       Barback:  Male, 5’6”, Caucasian, in his late teens or early twenties, with a thin build and light-brown or blond hair worn under a hat, with a little ponytail or mullet in the back.

Bartenders 1, 2, and 3 were behind the bar when the agent and his associate approached.  Bartenders 4 and 6 were behind the bar after another thirty minutes.  The remainder of the bartenders were behind the bar by midway into the visit.

The agent sat at the bar for several minutes before a bartender acknowledged him. 

Xxxxxx eventually approached with a very casual greeting, asking if she could get him and his associate something to drink.  She offered upsell options and did not require identification (one guest under 30 years).

Xxxxxx filled the round promptly and delivered it without cocktail napkins or coasters.  She asked if the agent and his associate wanted to start a tab and requested a credit card to do so. 

She appeared to ring in the round immediately; she did not place a tab in front of the agent, and did not introduce herself.  From the initial interaction, she appeared either unfriendly or uninterested.

Within several minutes, Xxxxxx returned and offered menus.  She did not make any suggestions or mention any specials.  She did not return to ask whether the agent and his associate had decided on any food for another twelve minutes.

The appetizer arrived after eight minutes.  Xxxxxx, having not provided any predrops, followed up after two minutes with plates, silverware, and napkins.

Shortly thereafter, Xxxxxx began interacting more with the agent and his associate, and proved very friendly and personable.  She inquired as to how they liked the food and went out of her way several times to try to accommodate the agent’s special request.  Please refer to the Food and Beverage Summary for details.

The bartenders were not very quick to notice the need for additional rounds, nor did they seem to habitually “sweep” the bar to check in on guests.  They spent most of their attention with several groups who appeared to be friends or maybe regulars, or talking amongst themselves.  They acted more as order takers as opposed to being pro-active about increasing sales.

Bartender 2 drank from a capped Solo cup while behind the bar.  Bartender 1 drank an unidentified brown liquid from an uncapped plastic cup behind the bar.  The bartenders also passed around a plate of nachos and kept it behind the bar, apparently to be snacked on while behind the bar.

Bartender 3 noticed the need for an additional round while passing quickly by the agent and his associate.  He filled the order quickly and did not ask for payment or a tab name, and he did not move to the register. 

The order did appear on the agent’s final tab and therefore is reported as a possible theft issue.

Bartender 2, upon offering and delivering an additional round, asked for the name on the tab and immediately updated it.

In general, the bartenders did an excellent job immediately ringing in rounds.  All bartenders were observed to demonstrate accurate cash handling.  There was no cashing in or handling of tips from the tip jar.

Bartender 4 explained the tab procedures to a bar guest, explaining the card would be authorized for twenty dollars and returned to the guest.  This differed from the observed practice, of bartenders keeping the cards behind the bar.

Bartender 1 kept lip gloss behind the bar and applied it in open site of paying customers.  The agent did not observe any other use of personal items.

The bartenders utilized a free-pour technique for cocktails, and poured according to standards. 

However, there was a great deal of waste when pouring draft beer, however, as they habitually allowed lots of foam to spill over while pouring a draft.  Given the very cold temperature of the drafts the agent and his associate were served, there did not appear to be a need for so much draft waste to bleed off foam, which, in the Agent’s experience, is a typical indicator of insufficiently-chilled beer.

The bar staff appeared attentive to service bar orders and fulfilled them according to protocols.

Barback was frequently behind the bar, delivering food orders as well as restocking glassware.  Whenever he was behind the bar, he did a sweet of the bar top, looking for empty glassware and dirty plates.  He was pleasant and friendly when asking guests if they were finished with their plates and could they be removed.  He appeared to be a hard worker.

When the agent asked to close his tab, Xxxxxx delivered an itemized check that was correct, as well as two credit card slips.  She thanked him and his associate and wished them a good night.

Throughout the visit, the agent continued to observe the bar staff from afar, and saw no evidence of theft or cash mishandling.

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010