Residential property managing · Minnesota

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance

Bloomington, MN · ~55 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
17.3
Avg TCR
1.4
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance runs at 1238% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Residential property managing workplace, earning a grade F.

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance: 17.3 TCR = 1238% of Residential property managing BLS 1.4 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance safety composite

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 3%), 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

25/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 17.33 per 100 workers

Safer than 3% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.31 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% 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%).

TCR Δ

−18.0

2017→2019

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance injury rate improved

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance's TCR fell 18.0 from 24.6 in 2017 to 6.6 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2017 at 24.6 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.19× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=24.6 · 2018=20.8 · 2019=6.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 531311 · Bloomington, MN ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 17.3 · 1238% of ind

  • DART 3.3 DART
  • RANK #24/26
  • PHOTO AMURCON REALTY CO
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 26 inj
  • SIZE ~55 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: AMURCON REALTY CO (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Gittleman Construction and Maintenance averages 17.3 TCR (1238% of the Residential property managing BLS benchmark).

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

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance TCR series: 2017=24.6 · 2018=20.8 · 2019=6.6 · BLS 1.4

Where Gittleman Construction and Maintenance falls in its industry

500 Residential property managing establishments

Safer than 3% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #24 safest of 26 Residential property managing employers in Minnesota.

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance (55 employees, TCR 17.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 02004006008001,000 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Gittleman Construction and Maintenance
Gittleman Construction and Maintenance (55 employees, TCR 17.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 4.5

Gittleman Construction and Maintenance has fewer employees than the Residential property managing median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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 6.6 3.3 4 0 0
2018 20.8 14.5 10 0 0
2017 24.6 5.7 12 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

531311 · MN · Bloomington

500 Residential property managing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 306 employers in Bloomington, 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 AMURCON REALTY CO 17.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Cornerstone Property Management Aspen LLC 16.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Altman Apartments LLC 18.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR CMC Hartford LLC 16.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Langhorst Pork, Inc. 55 FTE
STATE-SIZE Gemko of Forest Lake dba WDI Company 55 FTE
STATE-SIZE FCO Echo 55 FTE
STATE-SIZE Melrose, MN (Arvig) 55 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0081 BLOOMINGTON 8170 BLDG 2,884 FTE
CITY-NEAR HP - 8170 2,277 FTE
CITY-NEAR Bloomington/Normandale 1,474 FTE
CITY-NEAR Donaldson Company Inc. 1,390 FTE
NAT-TCR Hillcrest Educational Centers - Highpoint Campus 17.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Store 1269 17.3 TCR
NAT-TCR SNL Distribution Services Corp-Houston 17.3 TCR
NAT-TCR 6400-SWY-0027-0027-00462 17.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE El Paso Multi Use 55 FTE
NAT-SIZE Piedmont Propulsion Systems, LLC 55 FTE
NAT-SIZE A. Colarusso and Son, Inc. (Highway Construction) 55 FTE
NAT-SIZE BWE LLC, East Hartford, CT 55 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.