Cups, plastics (except foam), manufacturing · North Carolina

Dart Container Randleman

Randleman, NC · ~356 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.0
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Dart Container Randleman runs at 121% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Cups, plastics (except foam), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade D.

Dart Container Randleman: 4.0 TCR = 121% of Cups, plastics (except foam), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Dart Container Randleman safety composite

Dart Container Randleman scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 43%), 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

45/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 3.99 per 100 workers

Safer than 43% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.08 per 100 workers

Safer than 44% 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

−3.5

2016→2024

Dart Container Randleman injury rate improved

Dart Container Randleman's TCR fell 3.5 from 6.0 in 2016 to 2.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 12.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.52× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.0 · 2017=9.2 · 2018=12.3 · 2019=2.2 · 2020=1.4 · 2021=1.7 · 2022=0.3 · 2023=0.5 · 2024=2.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326199 · Randleman, NC ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 4.0 · 121% of ind

  • DART 2.1 DART
  • RANK #88/132
  • PHOTO Jabil
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 140 inj
  • SIZE ~356 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Jabil (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Dart Container Randleman in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Dart Container Randleman averages 4.0 TCR (121% of the Cups, plastics (except foam), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Dart Container Randleman TCR series: 2016=6 · 2017=9.2 · 2018=12.3 · 2019=2.2 · 2020=1.4 · 2021=1.7 · 2022=0.3 · 2023=0.5 · 2024=2.4 · BLS 3.3

Where Dart Container Randleman falls in its industry

2,838 Cups, plastics (except foam), establishments

Safer than 43% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #88 safest of 132 Cups, plastics (except foam), employers in North Carolina.

Dart Container Randleman (356 employees, TCR 4.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 101 employees and a TCR of 3.5 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 0100200300400 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Dart Container Randleman
Dart Container Randleman (356 employees, TCR 4.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 101 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Dart Container Randleman has more employees than the Cups, plastics (except foam), manufactur median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.5. 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 2.4 2.1 7 0 0
2023 0.5 0.0 1 0 0
2022 0.3 0.3 1 0 0
2021 1.7 1.0 5 0 0
2020 1.4 0.7 4 0 0
2019 2.2 1.9 9 0 0
2018 12.3 10.3 50 0 0
2017 9.2 1.2 39 0 0
2016 6.0 3.0 24 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326199 · NC · Randleman

2,838 Cups, plastics (except foam), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 28 employers in Randleman, 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 Jabil 4.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR IMPERIAL PLASTICS INC 4.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Fiber Pad 4.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR MN Rubber & Plastics - River Falls 4.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE WM 1392 356 FTE
STATE-SIZE 1552 356 FTE
STATE-SIZE WM 1298 356 FTE
STATE-SIZE Spencer Gifts Distribution Center 356 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 2704 272 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2704 252 FTE
CITY-NEAR Asheboro Bearing Plant 203 FTE
CITY-NEAR Asheboro 194 FTE
NAT-TCR Modern Welding Company of Florida, Inc. 4.0 TCR
NAT-TCR A-1 Electric Service Inc 4.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Store #13 4.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Schulte Building Systems, Inc-Cullman 4.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE ALTAVISTA 356 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sioux Falls Specialty Hospital 356 FTE
NAT-SIZE Menasha Packaging Company - Aurora 356 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hyperion Worthington 356 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, 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.