At the start of the evaluation period, there were two bartenders and one person the agent believed to be a bar back. At Approx 9:57pm a third bartender signed in.
Bartender 1: Xxxxxxxx male with a stocky build and brown long hair that he wore pulled into a pony tail. He had a sleeve tattoo on his right arm.
Bartender 2: Xxxxxxxx male with a muscular build and a thick beard.
Bartender 3: Xxxxxxxx female with a slender physique and brown hair that she wore pulled up.
Bar back: Young Xxxxxxxx male with a slender build. He was dressed in all black. He had brown hair styled in no particular pattern.
The agent was seated at the bar and immediately approached by bartender 1. The bartender did not introduce himself, but placed two menus on the bar top and asked how the agent and associate were doing. The bartender seemed knowledgeable regarding the drink menu, but unwilling to give suggestions about food (see food and beverage summery for details).
The bartender seemed impersonal and not overtly friendly to the agent.
He made the agent’s drinks and presented the drink on a cocktail napkin with proper garnish. He went on to ask the agent for payment, and took a credit card to secure a tab.
The bartender did not promote any other drinks, other than the Moscow Mule. He also failed to ask for an alcohol preference or up sell the drink in any way (see food and beverage summery for details).
The bartender was not accessible throughout the evaluation. He was generally talking/conversing with staff members or with an attractive blond patron at the end of the bar.
At 9:40pm bartender 1 made some shots for the aforementioned blond patron and her friends. He served the shots and then pulled one back for himself. He then crouched down behind the bar and drank the shot himself. He got up and proceeded to chat with the blond and her party.
This is an Arizona Department of liquor License Control ADLLC violation. If this Eye Spy agent would have been an ADLLC Agent, this establishment would have been levied a heavy fine.
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3
4-244. Unlawful acts
12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.
The bartender did not ring in the drinks immediately. Some time later, he went to the POS and may have rung in the shots; however, agent cannot verify this and relies on the general assumption they were given away.
Agent cannot substantiate a bar theft issue, because of the layout of the POS and facility, but highly suspects it had happened.
The agent’s receipt reflected all of the items ordered, however the agent believes the bartender may not always be ringing in drinks immediately after service (please see food and beverage summary for details).
Bartenders 2 and 3 were generally seen at the other end of the bar chatting with each other until the traffic picked up around 10:00. After that point, they got to work and didn’t chat very much.
The agent had no direct contact with any other employee behind the bar.
The drink quality of drinks varied from drink to drink. The agent also noticed that no bartender was using the same pouring count and liquor pour measurements varied widely.
The bar back didn’t seem to be authorized to make drinks. He did not carry himself like the three others behind the bar. He seemed a little less confident and more focused on clearing up used glassware and dishes.
The agent did see him serve two beers out of the refrigerator at 9:55pm and ring it into the POS in the middle of the bar.
Food and Beverage Summary
DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF
SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED
Notes from Bartender Summery:
The agent asked bartender 1 what was good to eat. The bartender responded, “I don’t know, it’s all good.” The agent persisted and the bartender finally replied, “I really like it all.” The agent believes the bartender could have provided at least one suggestion, even if he really didn’t care. The answer was so generic it was taken as a such.
The agent went on to ask the bartender what he thought of the drink “Air Mail.” The bartender responded, “I personally think it isn’t really good. It tastes just like champagne. I guess it’s okay if you like champagne.” He then proceeded to talk the agent out of ordering from the drink menu and suggested a Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx.
The bartender did not up sell the Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx. He poured well vodka. When asked what the well vodka was, the bartender said that the establishment didn’t carry a well vodka and that he was using Sky 99. The bartender rang in a “specialty cocktail” for $11.
At the end of the evaluation, the agent asked to close the tab. The bartender went to the POS and took a second to review the tab. He then turned to the agent and asked, “you had 2 Xxxxxxxxs right?” The agent responded that he had 3 in total. The bartender punched in an additional drink and then processed the agent’s payment.
Agent would like to stress the importance of ringing drinks into the POS as soon as they are made. This is a case point of how liquor can go un-accounted for whether by mistake or intentionally by theft. Delayed rings and grouping of drink orders is many times how bartenders mask bar theft and Agent would highly suggest that management instruct the bar staff of this and hold them accountable when they fail to immediately ring in drinks. Future spotter reports can verify if this is being done.
This Agent recommends different placement of the POS system as well.
Michael Zenner - CEO
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010