Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing · Indiana

Fibertech, INC

Elberfeld, IN · ~110 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Fibertech, INC runs at 292% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Fibertech, INC: 9.6 TCR = 292% of Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Fibertech, INC safety composite

Fibertech, INC scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 9%), 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

23/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.62 per 100 workers

Safer than 9% of industry peers

DART rate
F 4.53 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% 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

−7.1

2017→2020

Fibertech, INC injury rate improved

Fibertech, INC's TCR fell 7.1 from 12.8 in 2017 to 5.7 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2017 at 12.8 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0.47× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=12.8 · 2018=11.5 · 2019=8.5 · 2020=5.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326199 · Elberfeld, IN ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 9.6 · 292% of ind

  • DART 4.5 DART
  • RANK #127/143
  • PHOTO Group B
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 29 inj
  • SIZE ~110 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Group B (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Fibertech, INC in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Fibertech, INC averages 9.6 TCR (292% of the Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Fibertech, INC TCR series: 2017=12.8 · 2018=11.5 · 2019=8.5 · 2020=5.7 · BLS 3.3

Where Fibertech, INC falls in its industry

2,838 Utility containers (e.g., bask establishments

Safer than 9% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Indiana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #127 safest of 143 Utility containers (e.g., bask employers in Indiana.

Fibertech, INC (110 employees, TCR 9.6) 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 Fibertech, INC
Fibertech, INC (110 employees, TCR 9.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 101 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Fibertech, INC has more employees than the Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, 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
2020 5.7 4.5 5 0 0
2019 8.5 7.1 5 1 0
2018 11.5 8.1 10 0 0
2017 12.8 9.9 9 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326199 · IN · Elberfeld

2,838 Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,750 rated employers in Indiana with headcount on file · 7 employers in Elberfeld, 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 Group B 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Techniplas-Ankeny 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Coastal Windows, Inc. 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR AmSource 9.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Meyer & Najem, Inc. 110 FTE
STATE-SIZE Messer Construction - Indianapolis, IN 110 FTE
STATE-SIZE Culy Contracting LLC. 110 FTE
STATE-SIZE Atlas Excavating, Inc. 110 FTE
CITY-NEAR ELBERFELD IN 138 FTE
CITY-NEAR Fibertech Plastics LLC 119 FTE
CITY-NEAR North American Lighting - ITP - Tooling Facility 60 FTE
CITY-NEAR NAL INDIANA TOOL PLANT 53 FTE
NAT-TCR EDGE Contracting, Inc. 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 057/Ashland 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Ross store 375 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Idpos - Spokan Peak Season Relief 9.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Cedarburg Office - 391 110 FTE
NAT-SIZE PowerBack Rehabilitation Exton 110 FTE
NAT-SIZE Red Oak Health and Rehabilitation Center 110 FTE
NAT-SIZE Port of Morrow 110 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: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.