Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) · New York

Butler Fence Co., Inc.

Syracuse, NY · ~26 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.2
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Butler Fence Co., Inc. runs at 363% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) workplace, earning a grade F.

Butler Fence Co., Inc.: 10.2 TCR = 363% of Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) BLS 2.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Butler Fence Co., Inc. safety composite

Butler Fence Co., Inc. scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 6%), 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).

F

22/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.17 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.55 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% 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%).

TCR Δ

−8.5

2017→2019

Butler Fence Co., Inc. injury rate improved

Butler Fence Co., Inc.'s TCR fell 8.5 from 15.6 in 2017 to 7.1 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2017 at 15.6 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.35× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=15.6 · 2018=7.8 · 2019=7.1

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238990 · Syracuse, NY ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 10.2 · 363% of ind

  • DART 3.5 DART
  • RANK #52/53
  • PHOTO Mullen's Markings Inc
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 7 inj
  • SIZE ~26 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Mullen's Markings Inc (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Butler Fence Co., Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Butler Fence Co., Inc. averages 10.2 TCR (363% of the Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) BLS benchmark).

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

Butler Fence Co., Inc. TCR series: 2017=15.6 · 2018=7.8 · 2019=7.1 · BLS 2.8

Where Butler Fence Co., Inc. falls in its industry

1,634 Fence installation (except ele establishments

Safer than 6% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #52 safest of 53 Fence installation (except ele employers in New York.

Butler Fence Co., Inc. (26 employees, TCR 10.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 1.9 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 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Butler Fence Co., Inc.
Butler Fence Co., Inc. (26 employees, TCR 10.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 1.9

Butler Fence Co., Inc. has fewer employees than the Fence installation (except electronic co median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.9. 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
2019 7.1 3.5 2 0 0
2018 7.8 3.9 2 0 0
2017 15.6 7.8 3 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238990 · NY · Syracuse

1,634 Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 436 employers in Syracuse, NY · 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 Mullen's Markings Inc 10.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR J&W Asphalt, Inc - Shop 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Sturgis Project 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR All Steel Fence, Inc. 10.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Volles Dairy Farm, LLC 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE RG&E Mushroom Blvd 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE RG&E Fillmore 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Brookfield Renewable - Fulton 26 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. Joseph's Health 4,299 FTE
CITY-NEAR SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 3,970 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center 3,720 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center-SJH-NY 2,803 FTE
NAT-TCR 4769-544-Pottery Barn 10.2 TCR
NAT-TCR West Marine Store #564 10.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Police Department 10.2 TCR
NAT-TCR County of Sacramento, Department of Transportation - 4100 Traffic Way 10.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Foote Axle Forge LLC 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE DTE Gas Morgantown 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Essex Group Transportation 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Diamond J Custom Farming, Inc. 26 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: 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.