Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing · Missouri

George's Cassville Processing Plant

Cassville, MO · ~841 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.1
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

George's Cassville Processing Plant runs at 125% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing workplace, earning a grade D.

George's Cassville Processing Plant: 4.1 TCR = 125% of Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

George's Cassville Processing Plant safety composite

George's Cassville Processing Plant scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 42%), 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

60/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 4.12 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0.34 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 54% 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

−1.5

2016→2019

George's Cassville Processing Plant injury rate improved

George's Cassville Processing Plant's TCR fell 1.5 from 3.8 in 2016 to 2.3 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2017 at 6.5 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.08× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=3.8 · 2017=6.5 · 2018=3.8 · 2019=2.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 311615 · Cassville, MO ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 4.1 · 125% of ind

  • DART 0.3 DART
  • RANK #6/12
  • PHOTO Mar-Jac Poultry MS L…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 133 inj
  • SIZE ~841 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Mar-Jac Poultry MS LLC - Processing Plant (0.0 TCR gap)

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

George's Cassville Processing Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows George's Cassville Processing Plant averages 4.1 TCR (125% of the Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing BLS benchmark).

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

George's Cassville Processing Plant TCR series: 2016=3.8 · 2017=6.5 · 2018=3.8 · 2019=2.3 · BLS 3.3

Where George's Cassville Processing Plant falls in its industry

509 Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, establishments

Safer than 42% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Missouri alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 12 Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, employers in Missouri.

George's Cassville Processing Plant (841 employees, TCR 4.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 619 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 05001,0001,5002,000 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate George's Cassville Processing Plant
George's Cassville Processing Plant (841 employees, TCR 4.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 619 employees and a TCR of 3.5

George's Cassville Processing Plant has more employees than the Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, fr 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
2019 2.3 0.3 16 4 0
2018 3.8 1.7 33 1 0
2017 6.5 4.2 53 0 0
2016 3.8 2.2 31 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

311615 · MO · Cassville

509 Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,075 rated employers in Missouri with headcount on file · 22 employers in Cassville, MO · 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 Mar-Jac Poultry MS LLC - Processing Plant 4.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Mar-Jac Poultry AL, LLC 4.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc Processing Plant 4.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Sanderson Farms Hazlehurst Processing 4.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE MO-Springfield Call Center 840 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bodine Aluminum, Inc. - Troy 851 FTE
STATE-SIZE J&R Investments DBA Woodley Building Maintanence 830 FTE
STATE-SIZE Emerson Climate Technologies 829 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cassville Processing 4,329 FTE
CITY-NEAR Regal Beloit America, Inc. 288 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cassville Hatchery 262 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 914 243 FTE
NAT-TCR US IL Homewood Plant 4.1 TCR
NAT-TCR 324 - Airport Hwy 4.1 TCR
NAT-TCR 298 - Ralphs Corner 4.1 TCR
NAT-TCR 12-TTCO-THOMASVILLE 4.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE ITC 841 FTE
NAT-SIZE Carrier Corporation (Engineering/R&D) 841 FTE
NAT-SIZE Omaha Steaks JGB/O St 841 FTE
NAT-SIZE 2073-SW-20730056-FO 841 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: 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.