Fiber cans and drums (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material) made from purchased paperboard · North Carolina

Charlotte (Fiber)

Charlotte, NC · ~32 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Charlotte (Fiber) runs at 70% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Fiber cans and drums (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material) made from purchased paperboard workplace, earning a grade B.

Charlotte (Fiber): 2.3 TCR = 70% of Fiber cans and drums (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material) made from purchased paperboard BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Charlotte (Fiber) safety composite

Charlotte (Fiber) scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 85% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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

70/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.3 per 100 workers

Safer than 70% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 85% 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

−4.6

2023→2024

Charlotte (Fiber) injury rate improved

Charlotte (Fiber)'s TCR fell 4.6 from 4.6 in 2023 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 4.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2023=4.6 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 322219 · Charlotte, NC AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.3 · 70% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #2/6
  • PHOTO Huhtamaki Fulton
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 2 inj
  • SIZE ~32 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Huhtamaki Fulton (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Charlotte (Fiber) in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Charlotte (Fiber) averages 2.3 TCR (70% of the Fiber cans and drums (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material) made from purchased paperboard BLS benchmark).

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

Charlotte (Fiber) TCR series: 2023=4.6 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Charlotte (Fiber) falls in its industry

140 Fiber cans and drums (i.e., al establishments

Safer than 70% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 6 Fiber cans and drums (i.e., al employers in North Carolina.

Charlotte (Fiber) (32 employees, TCR 2.3) 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 Charlotte (Fiber)
Charlotte (Fiber) (32 employees, TCR 2.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 67 employees and a TCR of 3.6

Charlotte (Fiber) has fewer employees than the Fiber cans and drums (i.e., all-fiber, n median and a lower 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
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 4.6 0.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

322219 · NC · Charlotte

140 Fiber cans and drums (i.e., all-fiber, nonfiber ends of any material) made from purchased paperboard employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 2,058 employers in Charlotte, NC · 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 Huhtamaki Fulton 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR GREIF (IP SALT LAKE CITY) 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Greif (IP Kernersville - Tube) 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR AR184 Fort Smith (Dixie) 2.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE T.C. Smith Produce Farm 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE LATHAMS NURSERY INC. - MONROE, NC 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lake Wendell Farming Co. LLC 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE Case Farms Goldsboro Hatchery 32 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1101-Carolinas Medical Center (1101) 8,444 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0001-Carolinas Medical Center 8,032 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4795-AA-CLT-CHARLOTTE-CLT-TRML 7,295 FTE
CITY-NEAR Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center 4,973 FTE
NAT-TCR Mariners Hospital 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR GVEC Cuero SOC 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Hyatt Place Secaucus Meadowlands 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR CA-Wildomar Service Center 2.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE TK Cups - Sorgs 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Crown Electric, Inc. 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Riverside Peninsula Surgery Center 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sun Printing LLC 32 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: 2024, 2023. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.