Frozen food entrees (except seafood based), packaged, manufacturing · Texas

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC.

Austin, TX · ~345 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. runs at 38% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Frozen food entrees (except seafood based), packaged, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC.: 1.3 TCR = 38% of Frozen food entrees (except seafood based), packaged, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. safety composite

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 91% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

C

69/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 1.25 per 100 workers

Safer than 91% of industry peers

DART rate
C 1.77 per 100 workers

Safer than 57% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

Rising injury rate

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC.: 0.7 → 1.8 TCR

Peak year 2023 @ 1.8 TCR · DART/TCR 1.42× in 2023

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC.'s TCR rose 1.1 from 0.7 in 2022 to 1.8 in 2023. In 2023, DART was 1.42× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 311412 · Austin, TX AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 1.3 · 38% of ind

  • DART 1.8 DART
  • RANK #5/29
  • PHOTO JM Smucker Company
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~345 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: JM Smucker Company (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Texas employers → · Look up another →

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. averages 1.3 TCR (38% of the Frozen food entrees (except seafood based), packaged, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. TCR series: 2022=0.7 · 2023=1.8 · BLS 3.3

Where Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. falls in its industry

274 Frozen food entrees (except se establishments

Safer than 91% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #5 safest of 29 Frozen food entrees (except se employers in Texas.

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. (345 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 201 employees and a TCR of 4.0 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 05001,0001,500 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Bottom Line Food Processors, INC.
Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. (345 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 201 employees and a TCR of 4.0

Bottom Line Food Processors, INC. has more employees than the Frozen food entrees (except seafood base median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.0. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2023 1.8 1.8 6 0 0
2022 0.7 0.2 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

311412 · TX · Austin

274 Frozen food entrees (except seafood based), packaged, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 1,645 employers in Austin, TX · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR JM Smucker Company 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Kahiki-Gahanna OH 1.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Nestle Stouffers 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR QUALITY STAR PRODUCTS LTD 1.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Liberty Civil Construction,LLC 345 FTE
STATE-SIZE Jones Bros. Dirt & Paving Contractors Inc 345 FTE
STATE-SIZE Pieper Houston Electric, LP - Main Office - All Projects 345 FTE
STATE-SIZE Gowan Inc ,com 345 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ensign Services 11,325 FTE
CITY-NEAR NA-US-TX-Austin-Giga Texas 8,621 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6017-Loc: CORP LOC - US Austin 6,911 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6017-CORP LOC - USA UNITED STATES - AST 5,272 FTE
NAT-TCR United 357 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Alaska Court System (1) 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Universal Medical Resources, Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR IN005 1.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Sysco Jacksonville 345 FTE
NAT-SIZE Legrand AV Inc. 345 FTE
NAT-SIZE EC Source Services LLC 345 FTE
NAT-SIZE Analog Devices, Inc. Camas Site 345 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2023, 2022. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.