Toilet preparations (e.g., cosmetics, deodorants, perfumes) manufacturing · New Jersey

Contract Filling Inc

Cedar Grove, NJ · ~140 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
11.3
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Contract Filling Inc runs at 343% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Toilet preparations (e.g., cosmetics, deodorants, perfumes) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Contract Filling Inc: 11.3 TCR = 343% of Toilet preparations (e.g., cosmetics, deodorants, perfumes) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Contract Filling Inc safety composite

Contract Filling Inc scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 1%), 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

14/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 11.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 3% of industry peers

DART rate
F 9.48 per 100 workers

Safer than 1% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Contract Filling Inc: 8.0 → 9.5 TCR

Peak year 2019 @ 21.6 TCR · DART/TCR 0.84× in 2023

Contract Filling Inc's TCR rose 1.5 from 8.0 in 2016 to 9.5 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2019 at 21.6 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.84× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 325620 · Cedar Grove, NJ ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 11.3 · 343% of ind

  • DART 9.5 DART
  • RANK #37/37
  • PHOTO Brickell Brands, LLC
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 116 inj
  • SIZE ~140 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Brickell Brands, LLC (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Contract Filling Inc in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Contract Filling Inc averages 11.3 TCR (343% of the Toilet preparations (e.g., cosmetics, deodorants, perfumes) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Contract Filling Inc TCR series: 2016=8 · 2017=6.4 · 2018=10.9 · 2019=21.6 · 2020=13.9 · 2021=7 · 2022=13.2 · 2023=9.5 · BLS 3.3

Where Contract Filling Inc falls in its industry

260 Toilet preparations (e.g., cos establishments

Safer than 3% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New Jersey alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #37 safest of 37 Toilet preparations (e.g., cos employers in New Jersey.

Contract Filling Inc (140 employees, TCR 11.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 161 employees and a TCR of 2.3 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 0200400600800 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Contract Filling Inc
Contract Filling Inc (140 employees, TCR 11.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 161 employees and a TCR of 2.3

Contract Filling Inc has fewer employees than the Toilet preparations (e.g., cosmetics, de median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.3. 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 9.5 9.5 14 0 0
2022 13.2 0.0 16 0 0
2021 7.0 6.2 8 0 0
2020 13.9 9.3 15 0 0
2019 21.6 17.7 28 0 0
2018 10.9 9.4 14 0 0
2017 6.4 3.2 8 0 0
2016 8.0 5.5 13 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

325620 · NJ · Cedar Grove

260 Toilet preparations (e.g., cosmetics, deodorants, perfumes) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 11,201 rated employers in New Jersey with headcount on file · 17 employers in Cedar Grove, NJ · 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 Brickell Brands, LLC 11.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Chae Manufacturing 11.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Mane USA 11.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Evergreen Innovations, LLC 11.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Plant 02 - SH 140 FTE
STATE-SIZE Orora Visual New Jersey 140 FTE
STATE-SIZE Robertet Frangrances 140 FTE
STATE-SIZE Heritage Bag - Logan Township 140 FTE
CITY-NEAR ALARIS HEALTH AT CEDAR GROVE 204 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6164-ST VINCENT'S 202 FTE
CITY-NEAR The Canterbury at Cedar Grove 187 FTE
CITY-NEAR Waterview Center 168 FTE
NAT-TCR Highland Tank of Central Michigan 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Brookdale Western hills 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Badger Custom Pallet Inc 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Memphis Fence Company 11.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Palmer Steel 140 FTE
NAT-SIZE St. Bernard Hauling Operations 140 FTE
NAT-SIZE Miracle Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 140 FTE
NAT-SIZE Filtration : Lancaster EMHFF 140 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, 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.