Cores (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material), fiber, made from purchased paperboard · Arizona

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant

Phoenix, AZ · ~36 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant runs at 130% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Cores (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material), fiber, made from purchased paperboard workplace, earning a grade D.

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant: 4.3 TCR = 130% of Cores (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material), fiber, made from purchased paperboard BLS 3.3 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant safety composite

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 38%), 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).

D

43/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 4.28 per 100 workers

Safer than 43% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.67 per 100 workers

Safer than 38% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−5.6

2016→2021

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant injury rate improved

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant's TCR fell 5.6 from 8.3 in 2016 to 2.7 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2018 at 8.8 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.62× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=8.3 · 2017=3.3 · 2018=8.8 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=2.7 · 2021=2.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 322219 · Phoenix, AZ ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.3 · 130% of ind

  • DART 2.7 DART
  • RANK P43
  • PHOTO IPG Chicopee
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~36 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: IPG Chicopee (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant averages 4.3 TCR (130% of the Cores (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material), fiber, made from purchased paperboard BLS benchmark).

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

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant TCR series: 2016=8.3 · 2017=3.3 · 2018=8.8 · 2019=0 · 2020=2.7 · 2021=2.7 · BLS 3.3

Where Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant falls in its industry

140 Cores (i.e., all-fiber, nonfib establishments

Safer than 43% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers
Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant (36 employees, TCR 4.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 67 employees and a TCR of 3.6 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 0200400600 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant
Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant (36 employees, TCR 4.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 67 employees and a TCR of 3.6

Caraustar Phoenix Tube Plant has fewer employees than the Cores (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.6. 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
2021 2.7 2.7 1 0 0
2020 2.7 0.0 1 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 8.8 4.4 4 0 0
2017 3.3 3.3 1 0 0
2016 8.3 4.1 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

322219 · AZ · Phoenix

140 Cores (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material), fiber, made from purchased paperboard employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,594 rated employers in Arizona with headcount on file · 2,630 employers in Phoenix, AZ · 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 IPG Chicopee 4.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Duerr Packaging Co., Inc 4.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR KY042 Lexington Plant & DC (Dixie) 4.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Jonesville HQ 4.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE Verde River Growers, LLC 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Fondomonte CA - Blythe Farm 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dynapac Harvesting, Inc. (AZ) 36 FTE
STATE-SIZE Todd Whittaker Drywall Inc 36 FTE
CITY-NEAR Maricopa County 15,504 FTE
CITY-NEAR Phoenix Children's Hospital 7,575 FTE
CITY-NEAR All Company 6,261 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6403-64030500 6,153 FTE
NAT-TCR New York Metro 4.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Michels Pipe Services- CT 4.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Kanthal Bethel 4.3 TCR
NAT-TCR QualiChem Plant 1 4.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Montana Dakota Utilities - Rapid City, SD 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE Brookdale Farmers Branch 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE Foam Fabricators, Inc 36 FTE
NAT-SIZE Courtyard San Francisco Union Square 36 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: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.