Motors, electric (except engine starting motors, gearmotors, outboard), manufacturing · Minnesota

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation

Chanhassen, MN · ~149 workers · 5 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

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation runs at 39% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Motors, electric (except engine starting motors, gearmotors, outboard), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation: 1.3 TCR = 39% of Motors, electric (except engine starting motors, gearmotors, outboard), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation safety composite

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 73% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 28%), 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

52/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 1.28 per 100 workers

Safer than 73% of industry peers

DART rate
F 1.82 per 100 workers

Safer than 28% 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

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation: 1.2 → 1.8 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 2.5 TCR · DART/TCR 1.42× in 2021

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation's TCR rose 0.6 from 1.2 in 2016 to 1.8 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2018 at 2.5 TCR. In 2021, DART was 1.42× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 335312 · Chanhassen, MN AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 1.3 · 39% of ind

  • DART 1.8 DART
  • RANK #3/9
  • PHOTO Cummins Power System…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~149 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Cummins Power Systems - Fridley (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation averages 1.3 TCR (39% of the Motors, electric (except engine starting motors, gearmotors, outboard), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation TCR series: 2016=1.2 · 2017=0 · 2018=2.5 · 2020=0.9 · 2021=1.8 · BLS 3.3

Where Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation falls in its industry

222 Motors, electric (except engin establishments

Safer than 73% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 9 Motors, electric (except engin employers in Minnesota.

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation (149 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 120 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 05001,0001,5002,000 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation
Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation (149 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 120 employees and a TCR of 2.3

Curtiss-Wright/Exlar Automation has more employees than the Motors, electric (except engine starting median and a lower 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
2021 1.8 1.8 2 0 0
2020 0.9 0.9 1 0 0
2018 2.5 0.6 4 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 1.2 1.2 1 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

335312 · MN · Chanhassen

222 Motors, electric (except engine starting motors, gearmotors, outboard), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 65 employers in Chanhassen, MN · 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 Cummins Power Systems - Fridley 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 2275 Stanley Avenue 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR NC42 DYNAMIC FLUID SOLUTIONS - TECHNICAL IN 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Leroy Somer 1.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Minneapolis Office 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE RJM Construction LLC 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Minnesota Thermofoil Plant 149 FTE
CITY-NEAR IWCO Chanhassen 1,028 FTE
CITY-NEAR CHANHASSEN 614 FTE
CITY-NEAR Emerson Automation Solutions - Chanhassen 596 FTE
CITY-NEAR TBG2 350 FTE
NAT-TCR Unified 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Dot Foods, Inc.- GA 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Terstep Company, Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Elite Services Incorporated 1.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Transitions Healthcare Washignton PA LLC 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE CHS Services HQ3 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE Eagle Transport Corporation - Selma 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE GROUP Deep Foundations 149 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, 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.