BARTENDER THEFT – Not ringing in drinks. Grouping & Delaying drink rings to hide bartender theft. Illegal consumption of alcohol. Obviously over intoxicated customers. Major dram shop issues.

HOSPITALITY CHECKPOINT SPOTTER SERVICE

http://www.hospitalitycheckpoint.com/

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

· Bartender 1: Caucasian male wearing a brown shirt, jean shorts, and a baseball cap. He was approximately 5’9” tall with facial hair. His name is believed to be Xxxxxx.

· Bartender 2: Caucasian male who appeared only for about 20 minutes behind the bar. He was wearing a polo shirt and a white ASU ball cap. His name may have been Xxxxxx or Xxxxxx.

The Agent was greeted quickly by Xxxxxx. Xxxxxx was not overly welcoming but asked the guests what they would like to drink. Xxxxxx informed the guests that the flavored vodkas were on sale for $3. The Agent and her Associate ordered beverages and Xxxxxx produced the drinks quickly. The Agent paid cash for the $6 round. Xxxxxx moved to the POS and rang in the beverages which totaled $6. The correct change was given. Xxxxxx offered refills at the appropriate times. A new beverage was ordered and delivery was quick. The transaction was rung into the POS and the correct amount appeared on the screen, with change being given to the guest. The cash drawer was closed after each transaction.

The Agent watched as Xxxxxx made drinks. He did not move to the POS immediately with guests running tabs only with guests paying cash. He definitely grouped drink orders with tab purchases.

Agent recommends that management discourage this bartender habit.

Xxxxxx’s pour was consistently a 3 or 4 count (4 count = 1 ½ oz), and the ice scoop was being used. Glassware piled up on occasion.

Bartender 2 was seen at the bar consuming alcoholic beverages, and when Xxxxxx got behind on glassware, he went behind the bar to assist him. This is a clear ADLLC violation as he was consuming alcohol at the bar just minutes prior.

Whenever an off duty employee or even a customer lend any type of “work” related assistance, that constitutes a work environment – even if the person is not being paid. If this Hospitality Checkpoint Agent was an ADLLC agent, this establishment would have been rendered a large fine.

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.

His beverages were not seen ever rung into the POS system, which also constitutes a theft issue.

While behind the bar, Xxxxxx made an alcoholic beverage. He later informed Xxxxxx to ring it into the POS. Xxxxxx misunderstood and made the beverage again. This drink was put into the reach-in cooler in case the guest ordered an additional. Later in the evening, it was discarded but not accounted for anywhere on register or a spill sheet.

Shots are very popular here at this establishment. Guests continuously approached the bar and ordered 5 or 6 at a time. This exceeds the legal limit to be served to one guest. Agent observed at least a half dozen of these ADLLC violations

ADLLC VIOLATION – 6 count
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.

Also on multiple occasions (at least 4 times), shots were served to guests who were obviously intoxicated. This too is a huge violation.

ADLLC VIOLATION – 4 count
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.

On one occasions a male guest, who is believed to be a regular, ordered 3 “car bomb” like beverages AND two shots. He walked away from the bar without his shots. He later returned and attempted to order more shots from Xxxxxx. Xxxxxx’s response to this customer was, dude you’re so drunk you don’t even remember ordering these first shots right here on the bar. Xxxxxx

ADLLC VIOLATION
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.

Bartender 2, then got involved (as he is still sitting at the bar consuming alcoholic beverages) and attempted to assist Xxxxxx is getting a credit card from the very intoxicated guest.

This guest was extremely offended that they were requesting a credit card to secure what appeared to be a tab almost over $100. Agent found this rather surprising at an establishment that serves $3 a drink! Xxxxxx tried to calm the drunk guest which just escalated the matter and the patron attempted to get Xxxxxx to “go out back” with him. The situation was diffused by another guest who got involved.

Agent was witnessing a dramshop lawsuit just about to happen with an off duty employee and a bar customer about to be engaged in an act of violence.

This guest continued to order beverages, however, Xxxxxx told him no more shots only beer! He was all ready extremely intoxicated and the Agent was absolutely floored by this statement.

Other regulars were also seen who could barely walk.

A female guest with long curly red hair was barely coherent when the Agent arrived on duty. Two hours later, she was still consuming alcohol in this establishment. She was staggering and could not speak coherently.

The Agent followed her into the parking lot later, to watch and see if she was driving. Luckily, she left in the passenger’s seat with two men.

Another male regular, approximately 6’1” tall was also seen extremely intoxicated at 11pm. He too was still in the establishment when the Agent left two hours later. He was seated the last half hour of the night at the end of the bar where he could barely hold up his head.

Xxxxxx spoke to the man aforementioned in the reports asking him why he did not get in the taxi that he called for him. This was a smart move on Xxxxxx’s part however; he should have made sure he left the premises.

ADLLC VIOLATION
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3
4-244. Unlawful acts
14. 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

There was a large group of regulars in the establishment this particular evening and it would be the Agent’s opinion that 40 percent of them were over-served and well over the legal limit to drive. The ones listed above who extremely obvious and should not have been drinking minimally upon the Agent’s arrival but were continued to be served straight alcohol for two more hours.

The Agent believes that free drinks were being given away as well. However, with grouping of the POS rings, it is near impossible to verify this. If the bartender never rings drinks in after making them, it’s impossible for me as a trained bar spotter to substantiate the theft occurrences. Please don’t be deceived by this statement as theft occurrences were most certainly occurring, they just can’t be completely verified because of the bartenders ringing procedures.

The Agent believes that Xxxxxx’s drinks were never rung in and multiple others and would believe the alcohol costs to be high. The Agent saw multiple times beers being delivered to regular guests that were not rung in either nor did the amounts rung in later appear to be for those beverages.

The establishment should set operational procedures in place for an immediate ring after the beverage is produced. Patrons should also have a new tab placed in front of them on the rail. This makes theft much easier to detect.

An itemized receipt was not given to the Agent for the tab drinks. Cash was paid for most. However, the Agent ordered an alcoholic drink and two non-alcoholic drinks and the total was $6.50. The Agent is unsure if this is correct therefore, will score it as accurate.

Overall, it is the opinion of the Agent that Xxxxxx needs to cut customers off when they have had enough. That is definitely not being done and the establishment’s liquor license is highly in jeopardy. The Agent is very accurate in saying that these guests were way over served when arriving at 11pm and continued to drink for two additional hours. The establishment is also in violation due to an employee who is consuming alcohol being behind the bar and also acting as an employee while confronting an irate guest.

Very dangerous – and the Agent hypothesizes that this establishment would have been closed should the Liquor Inspector entered the establishment at the same time as the Agent.

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner – CEO
Hospitality Checkpoint LLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com (blog)
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

9 thoughts on “BARTENDER THEFT – Not ringing in drinks. Grouping & Delaying drink rings to hide bartender theft. Illegal consumption of alcohol. Obviously over intoxicated customers. Major dram shop issues.”