Glass making machinery (e.g., blowing, forming, molding) manufacturing · Minnesota

Erdman Automation Corporation

Princeton, MN · ~141 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Erdman Automation Corporation runs at 133% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Glass making machinery (e.g., blowing, forming, molding) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade D.

Erdman Automation Corporation: 4.4 TCR = 133% of Glass making machinery (e.g., blowing, forming, molding) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Erdman Automation Corporation safety composite

Erdman Automation Corporation scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 30%), 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

35/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.4 per 100 workers

Safer than 30% of industry peers

DART rate
F 2.21 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% 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

Erdman Automation Corporation: 4.6 → 5.5 TCR

Peak year 2024 @ 5.5 TCR · DART/TCR 0.5× in 2024

Erdman Automation Corporation's TCR rose 0.9 from 4.6 in 2018 to 5.5 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 0.5× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 333249 · Princeton, MN ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 4.4 · 133% of ind

  • DART 2.2 DART
  • RANK #17/23
  • PHOTO United Silicone Lanc…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 27 inj
  • SIZE ~141 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: United Silicone Lancaster (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Erdman Automation Corporation in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Erdman Automation Corporation averages 4.4 TCR (133% of the Glass making machinery (e.g., blowing, forming, molding) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Erdman Automation Corporation TCR series: 2018=4.6 · 2022=2.8 · 2023=4.7 · 2024=5.5 · BLS 3.3

Where Erdman Automation Corporation falls in its industry

448 Glass making machinery (e.g., establishments

Safer than 30% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #17 safest of 23 Glass making machinery (e.g., employers in Minnesota.

Erdman Automation Corporation (141 employees, TCR 4.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 70 employees and a TCR of 3.0 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 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Erdman Automation Corporation
Erdman Automation Corporation (141 employees, TCR 4.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 70 employees and a TCR of 3.0

Erdman Automation Corporation has more employees than the Glass making machinery (e.g., blowing, f median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.0. 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 5.5 2.2 10 0 0
2023 4.7 2.7 7 0 0
2022 2.8 0.0 4 0 0
2018 4.6 3.1 6 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

333249 · MN · Princeton

448 Glass making machinery (e.g., blowing, forming, molding) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 45 employers in Princeton, 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 United Silicone Lancaster 4.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR DANNAR HQ 4.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR PFCH 4.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Innovative Plastics Molders, INC 4.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Evergreen MNF2 141 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wieser Brothers General Contractor, Inc. 141 FTE
STATE-SIZE Riley Bros Construction Inc 141 FTE
STATE-SIZE Peterson Companies, Inc. 141 FTE
CITY-NEAR FV Northland Medical Center 504 FTE
CITY-NEAR Crystal Cabinet Works, Inc. 456 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 3102 315 FTE
CITY-NEAR Princeton1 259 FTE
NAT-TCR Memorial Campus 4.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Morrison Bros. Mfg. 4.4 TCR
NAT-TCR akers packaging service inc 4.4 TCR
NAT-TCR CEMCO, LLC - City of Industry Plant 4.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE CETI 141 FTE
NAT-SIZE Meadowview Health & Rehab 141 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dedicated Logistics, LLC -10 141 FTE
NAT-SIZE Vessey & Company, Inc. 141 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, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.