Polyurethane foam products manufacturing · Indiana

Ferdinand Branch Plant

Ferdinand, IN · ~26 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Ferdinand Branch Plant runs at 109% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Polyurethane foam products manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

Ferdinand Branch Plant: 3.6 TCR = 109% of Polyurethane foam products manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Ferdinand Branch Plant safety composite

Ferdinand Branch Plant scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 82% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 41%), 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

58/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 3.61 per 100 workers

Safer than 41% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 82% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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%).

Ferdinand Branch Plant held a steady TCR band

Ferdinand Branch Plant's TCR held near 0.3 from 4.2 in 2016 to 4.5 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 8.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=4.2 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=5.2 · 2020=5.3 · 2021=4.5 · 2022=8.8 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=4.5

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326150 · Ferdinand, IN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.6 · 109% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #23/37
  • PHOTO UFP Technologies GT
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 7 inj
  • SIZE ~26 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: UFP Technologies GT (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Ferdinand Branch Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Ferdinand Branch Plant averages 3.6 TCR (109% of the Polyurethane foam products manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Ferdinand Branch Plant TCR series: 2016=4.2 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=5.2 · 2020=5.3 · 2021=4.5 · 2022=8.8 · 2023=0 · 2024=4.5 · BLS 3.3

Where Ferdinand Branch Plant falls in its industry

474 Polyurethane foam products man establishments

Safer than 41% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Indiana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #23 safest of 37 Polyurethane foam products man employers in Indiana.

Ferdinand Branch Plant (26 employees, TCR 3.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 76 employees and a TCR of 3.1 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 050100150200250 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Ferdinand Branch Plant
Ferdinand Branch Plant (26 employees, TCR 3.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 76 employees and a TCR of 3.1

Ferdinand Branch Plant has fewer employees than the Polyurethane foam products manufacturing median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.1. 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 4.5 0.0 1 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 8.8 4.4 2 0 0
2021 4.5 4.5 1 0 0
2020 5.3 5.3 1 0 0
2019 5.2 0.0 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 4.2 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326150 · IN · Ferdinand

474 Polyurethane foam products manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,750 rated employers in Indiana with headcount on file · 25 employers in Ferdinand, IN · 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 UFP Technologies GT 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Altoona Plant 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR New Castle, IN 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hunter Panels - Smithfield, PA 3.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Danville 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Whitewater Valley REMC 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Franklin(Pwr Del-IN) 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Southern Indiana Power 26 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ferdinand, IN 1,668 FTE
CITY-NEAR Masterbrand Cabinets LLC 1,639 FTE
CITY-NEAR Best Home Furnishings/Chair Division 302 FTE
CITY-NEAR Best Home Furnishings - Chair Division 251 FTE
NAT-TCR White Transit School Buses Inc. 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Benzel's Bretzel Bakery, Inc. 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Ndx Albensi 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Oak Lane Nursing and Rehab 3.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Blanton Supplies of Little River 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sterling Rail 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Schexnailder Sheet Metal Works, Inc. 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Marine and Industrial Supply 26 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.