Air cargo containers, light gauge metal, manufacturing · Maryland

Garrett Container Systems, Inc.

Accident, MD · ~106 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.1
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Garrett Container Systems, Inc. runs at 276% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Air cargo containers, light gauge metal, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Garrett Container Systems, Inc.: 9.1 TCR = 276% of Air cargo containers, light gauge metal, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Garrett Container Systems, Inc. safety composite

Garrett Container Systems, Inc. scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 23%), 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

31/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.1 per 100 workers

Safer than 23% of industry peers

DART rate
F 4.01 per 100 workers

Safer than 25% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Garrett Container Systems, Inc.: 7.4 → 13.0 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 13.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0.44× in 2023

Garrett Container Systems, Inc.'s TCR rose 5.6 from 7.4 in 2018 to 13.0 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 13.8 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.44× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332439 · Accident, MD ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 9.1 · 276% of ind

  • DART 4.0 DART
  • RANK #3/4
  • PHOTO Metal Moulding Corp
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 34 inj
  • SIZE ~106 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Metal Moulding Corp (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Garrett Container Systems, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Garrett Container Systems, Inc. averages 9.1 TCR (276% of the Air cargo containers, light gauge metal, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Garrett Container Systems, Inc. TCR series: 2018=7.4 · 2019=5.5 · 2020=5.5 · 2021=9.4 · 2022=13.8 · 2023=13 · BLS 3.3

Where Garrett Container Systems, Inc. falls in its industry

175 Air cargo containers, light ga establishments

Safer than 23% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Maryland alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 4 Air cargo containers, light ga employers in Maryland.

Garrett Container Systems, Inc. (106 employees, TCR 9.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 60 employees and a TCR of 4.7 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 0100200300400500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Garrett Container Systems, Inc.
Garrett Container Systems, Inc. (106 employees, TCR 9.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 60 employees and a TCR of 4.7

Garrett Container Systems, Inc. has more employees than the Air cargo containers, light gauge metal, median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.7. 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
2023 13.0 4.0 10 3 0
2022 13.8 2.3 8 4 0
2021 9.4 2.1 5 4 0
2020 5.5 0.9 6 0 0
2019 5.5 0.0 1 5 0
2018 7.4 2.1 4 3 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332439 · MD · Accident

175 Air cargo containers, light gauge metal, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,213 rated employers in Maryland with headcount on file · 3 employers in Accident, MD · 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 Metal Moulding Corp 9.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Advanced Industries, Inc. 9.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Summit Solutions of Colorado, LLC 9.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Cleveland Steel Container Corporation - Streetsboro 9.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Accurate Insulation #857 106 FTE
STATE-SIZE Taylor Water Technologies - Main 106 FTE
STATE-SIZE Advance Business Systems 106 FTE
STATE-SIZE Deli Brands of America 106 FTE
CITY-NEAR Doble Engineering Company (Phenix Technologies) 116 FTE
CITY-NEAR Maryland State Highway Administration Keysers Ridge 52 FTE
NAT-TCR ARS Aleut Demolition Services, LLC - Y-12 9.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Western Pacific Precast, LLC 9.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Main facility -BCI Burke Co. 9.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Amac Enterprises, Inc. 9.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Maax Bath Valdosta 106 FTE
NAT-SIZE Houston TX Millwork (Port NW) 106 FTE
NAT-SIZE International Paper 106 FTE
NAT-SIZE Seneca Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 106 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 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.