coor brewing co by mbl22215

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 3

									Re:            Coors Brewing Company/ Unibev., Ltd./Zima
d.b.a.         Blue Moon Brewing Company
Premises:      12th and East Streets
City/Town:     Golden, CO 80401-0030
Heard:         July 11, 2006


                                         DECISION

       A Commission hearing was held to determine whether Coors Brewing Company/
Unibev., Ltd./Zima “ the licensee” violated Ch.138 §34- Delivery of an alcoholic
beverage to a person under twenty-one years of age(2 Counts).

        The licensee stipulated to the Investigator’s report (Exhibit II). Chief Investigator,
Frederick Mahony testified that while he and Investigator Teehan were investigating the
business operation of BUP, Inc. d.b.a. The Point, they “observed Jonathan Cox who later
identified himself as an on premise representative employee of Coors, on stage with a
microphone and addressing the crowd in a loud manner and stating “come on up and get
some free Coors Light it’s Christmas…” Investigator Mahony stated he observed Cox
hand Coors Light bottles to two individuals (age 20). Cox never asked for identification
for either of them when delivering them beers. Chief Investigator approached Cox
identified himself and asked Cox to describe what he was doing and if he was a
representative of Coors. Cox provided a business card and informed Chief Investigator
Mahony that he had purchased the alcoholic beverages (1) case of Coors Light from the
bartender and that he was promoting Coors Light. Chief Mahony further testified that
Cox produced a receipt, which showed that he purchased said case from the licensee.

        The Commission finds that the licensee Coors Brewing Company/Unibev.,
Ltd/Zima violated Ch.138 §34- delivery of an alcoholic beverage to a person under the
age of twenty-one (2 Counts). As mitigation evidence the licensee stated through counsel
that the salesman was terminated and introduced evidence of social responsibility through
their prevention programs Commitment to the Future Exhibit B and Trade Practice
Summary Exhibit D. The licensee also introduced into evidence Exhibit A, Respondents
Statement Regarding Sanctions Proposed Findings and Rules that they proffer indexes
the proper sanctions, which they believe the Commission, should adopt. The licensee
further directed the Commissions attention to Exhibit D which was a Commission
decision of February 15 regarding BVP, LLC d.b.a. The Point who was the §12 licensee
who delivered the case of beer to BVP. In the BVP, LLC decision the Commission
suspended the licensees license for a period of 6 days for violation of 204 CMR 2.05 (2)-
Permitting an illegality on the licensed premises, to wit: Ch.138 §34C- Possession of an
alcoholic beverage by a person under twenty-one years of age (2 Counts).

        The licensee Coors Brewing Company is suggesting that the retailer BVP, LLC
and supplier (Coors) are in the same shoes. In consideration of a penalty the Commission
reviews various factors, history of violations, type of violation, seriousness of offense,
size of the operation and mitigation. In consideration of Coors violation the Commission
reviewed Coors lack of prior history and although there was no record of prior violations
said lack of record must be viewed in the proper perspective. In comparing Coors a
supplier whose normal business transactions is from supplier to wholesalers is very
different from a retailer like BVP, LLC whose retail business is retailer to customer.

         Comparing the two licensees and businesses is like comparing apples to oranges.
It is the Commission determination that a supplier who delivers alcoholic beverages to
patrons not only distributes without legal authority but he or she does so without
necessary tools and experience of a bar owner/manager or waitress whose trained eye(s)
cannot be substituted by a salesman desire to market a product. In this case the
Investigators found a salesman on stage with a microphone addressing the crowd in a
loud manner and stating, “ Come up and get your free Coors Light, its Christmas”. In this
case the salesman had purchased a case of beer to distribute. In a legal licensed setting a
§12 license holder delivers an alcoholic beverage to a patron after he determines their age
and their level of intoxication. He (bartender or waitress) would also determine to whom
the alcohol would be delivered to and consumed by. The Commission recognizes the
inherit danger of allowing a non-licensed retail distributor to distribute alcohol beverages
and herein suspends the licensee Coors license for a period of 18 days. Said suspension
will be held in abeyance for one year, unless said violation(s) re-occur



                           Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission




Eddie J. Jenkins, Chairman________________________________________________




Robert H. Cronin, Commissioner ____________________________________________

Dated at Boston, Massachusetts this 2nd of August 2006.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Superior Court under the provisions of
Chapter 30A of the Massachusetts General Laws within thirty days of receipt of this
decision.


EJJ/kac


cc:    Local Board
       Gerald Caruso, Esq.
       Chief Inv.
       File

								
To top