Power window and door lock systems, automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing · Michigan

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW)

Hazel Park, MI · ~68 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.0
Avg TCR
5.4
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) runs at 18% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Power window and door lock systems, automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW): 1.0 TCR = 18% of Power window and door lock systems, automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing BLS 5.4 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) safety composite

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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

73/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 0.98 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% 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

−2.0

2022→2023

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) injury rate improved

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW)'s TCR fell 2.0 from 2.0 in 2022 to 0.0 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 2.0 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=2.0 · 2023=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336320 · Hazel Park, MI AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 1.0 · 18% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #11/36
  • PHOTO Michigan Office
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~68 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Michigan Office (0.0 TCR gap)

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

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) averages 1.0 TCR (18% of the Power window and door lock systems, automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) TCR series: 2022=2 · 2023=0 · BLS 5.4

Where HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) falls in its industry

216 Power window and door lock sys establishments

Safer than 78% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #11 safest of 36 Power window and door lock sys employers in Michigan.

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) (68 employees, TCR 1.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 162 employees and a TCR of 1.9 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 05001,0001,500 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW)
HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) (68 employees, TCR 1.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 162 employees and a TCR of 1.9

HI-LEX Hazel Park (HCIW) has fewer employees than the Power window and door lock systems, auto median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.9. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 2.0 2.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336320 · MI · Hazel Park

216 Power window and door lock systems, automotive, truck, and bus, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 26 employers in Hazel Park, MI · 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 Michigan Office 1.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR American Aurtowire 1.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Motorcarparts of America Inc., 1.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Cummins Electrified Power NA Inc Milpitas 1.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Gas Construction Lansing 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE Detroit Thermal 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE Erhardt Construction 68 FTE
STATE-SIZE 1001 - BELFOR Livonia MI 68 FTE
CITY-NEAR AMZL : DDT1 1,632 FTE
CITY-NEAR Dakkota Integrated systems LLC 492 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - SMI1 431 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - DDT1 328 FTE
NAT-TCR Einfalt Recycling & Salvage i 1.0 TCR
NAT-TCR HEB Center of Cedar Park 1.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Virginia American Water - Alexandria District 1.0 TCR
NAT-TCR New Orleans Iron Works, L.L.C. 1.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE All American Maintenance Inc 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE Welders Supply 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE Specialty Gases Inc. 68 FTE
NAT-SIZE Rehab Builders, Inc. 68 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.