- Bartender 1: Caucasian male with a xxx tattoo on his xxxx xxxx and a long pony tail. He wore a name tag that identified him as xxxxxx.
- Bartender 2: Caucasian female with brown past shoulder length brown hair. She wore a name tag that identified her as xxxxxx .
The agent was greeted immediately greeted by xxxxxx after approaching the bar. xxxxxx had a neutral demeanor. He was not very friendly, nor was he rude or angry. He seemed very relaxed and not too involved in chatting with patrons. He seemed to be well known by the clientele, so the agent isn’t sure if he was just having a bad day, or if that was his usual demeanor.
Bartender 2 was considerably more friendly and outgoing. He smiled a lot while she worked and when she addressed patrons. She also made a lot of small talk. The agent saw that while both bartenders would venture outside of the bar to take orders from nearby tables or to clear used glassware, it was xxxxxx who did the bulk of the roaming while xxxxxx hung out behind the bar for the majority of the evaluation period.
The agent found the pour counts of both bartenders to be consistent, but inaccurate. xxxxxx and xxxxxx would pour the posi-pour amount and then tilt the bottle to finish another count and a half delivering more liquor than allowable. This is a theft occurrence. The agent observed the bartenders do this for every cocktail they made.
The bartenders were very good about using cocktail napkins on the bar top. They set them down for every drink they served to the agent and to surrounding patrons.
The agent saw that both bartenders would ring in their drinks to the POS. xxxxxx ’ ring-ins were almost always immediately after service. She seemed very controlled and methodical with her imput to the POS. She rarely group ringed, or delayed her ring ins. The agent did not see any suspicious activity from xxxxxx during the evaluation other than trying to circumvent the posi-pour spouts.
xxxxxx , on the other hand, often had behavior that seemed odd or suspicious. xxxxxx was always punching in some information into his phone. He kept his cell phone right next to the POS screen on the register. The agent counted numerous times when he would ring in drinks and then go directly to punch something into his cell phone. The agent believes that it is possible he could be keeping some record or abacus system of the drink charges to go back at a later time and balance out his register.
At first, the agent thought he could be sending a text message. However the information he was inputting didn’t seem to be long enough to be a text message. Generally a text message is a quick sentence. The amount of time he took to put the information seemed to be too short to be a text message.
There is also the pattern that the agent noticed. xxxxxx would punch in information to his phone only after ringing in a drink to the POS. Otherwise, it xxxxxx didn’t really seem to touch his phone while he worked. He only went to it after he punched in drinks to the POS.
The agent found his ring ins to be accurate. He charged the agent the appropriate amounts for the drinks he served. And after every ring in, the POS would flash with a dollar amount to charge. The agent also noticed he would punch in additional info into the POS other than drinks and starting tabs.
He also did a few questionable things with cash. At 9:25pm, xxxxxx left cash sitting on top of the register in a little stack while he serviced patrons. He left the cash there for over two minutes. Then he rang in the drink order that the cash was supposed to pay for. He then went to the register for someone else’s order and looked like he was opening a tab. He then caused the cash drawer to open and placed the stack of money in the drawer. This further substantiates the Agent’s suspicion that he is padding the drawer with stolen money.
The screen did not display an “amount due” sign with the dollar amount that he was supposed to be putting in. The agent found this behavior suspicious. xxxxxx repeated the same thing at least twice, but was always seen punching things into what appeared to be a tab screen.
Agent suspects that this bartender is using the POS drawer to harbor stolen money and pulling it at a safer time, most likely at check out.
The agent is also a little concerned with the amount of traffic that was behind the bar. The bartenders would come and go from the bar and often times not be able to see around the corner from one end of the bar.
At 9:32pm, an older female walked behind the bar and put a cash envelope in a drawer located toward the middle of the bar. After that she returned to a table where she and some friends were drinking.
It seemed that purses were kept behind the bar and patrons had free access to when they could retrieve their purses. Again, the agent notes that the bartenders would sometimes not be able to see every square foot of the bar. Having people come and go from behind the bar leaves a lot of room for serious issues.
Michael Zenner – CEO
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2011