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

HP Manufacturing

Cleveland, OH · ~49 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.5
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

HP Manufacturing runs at 105% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

HP Manufacturing: 3.5 TCR = 105% of Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

HP Manufacturing safety composite

HP Manufacturing scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 86% 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

63/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 3.48 per 100 workers

Safer than 51% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 86% 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

−5.2

2016→2022

HP Manufacturing injury rate improved

HP Manufacturing's TCR fell 5.2 from 7.6 in 2016 to 2.5 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2016 at 7.6 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=7.6 · 2017=3.6 · 2018=3.6 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=2.5

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326199 · Cleveland, OH ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.5 · 105% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #142/270
  • PHOTO Toter - Del Rio
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~49 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Toter - Del Rio (0.0 TCR gap)

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

HP Manufacturing in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows HP Manufacturing averages 3.5 TCR (105% 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

HP Manufacturing TCR series: 2016=7.6 · 2017=3.6 · 2018=3.6 · 2021=0 · 2022=2.5 · BLS 3.3

Where HP Manufacturing falls in its industry

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

Safer than 51% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Ohio alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #142 safest of 270 Utility containers (e.g., bask employers in Ohio.

HP Manufacturing (49 employees, TCR 3.5) 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 HP Manufacturing
HP Manufacturing (49 employees, TCR 3.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 101 employees and a TCR of 3.5

HP Manufacturing has fewer employees than the Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, median and a lower 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
2022 2.5 0.0 1 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 3.6 0.0 2 0 0
2017 3.6 0.0 2 0 0
2016 7.6 5.7 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326199 · OH · Cleveland

2,838 Utility containers (e.g., baskets, bins, boxes, buckets, dishpans, pails), plastics (except foam), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,650 rated employers in Ohio with headcount on file · 922 employers in Cleveland, OH · 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 Toter - Del Rio 3.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Apollo Renal Therapeutics dba Artemis Plastics 3.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Poppelmann Plastics USA LLC 3.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR USA Sheboygan WI - VPI Corp 3.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Layer Site 6 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE East Ohio Transmission SC 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE Standard Contracting & Engineering, Inc. 49 FTE
STATE-SIZE Stanley Miller Construction Co Main 49 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cleveland Clinic Main Campus 25,629 FTE
CITY-NEAR The Cleveland Clinic Foundation 20,763 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cleveland Medical Center 10,377 FTE
CITY-NEAR SILCO FIRE & SECURITY - CLEVELAND 3,641 FTE
NAT-TCR Wolverine Building Group 3.5 TCR
NAT-TCR DMJ Transportation 3.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Google GPAK 3.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Monroe Roadways Contractors, Inc. 3.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE Rabbit River Transport II LLC 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE SJC-SPF 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE Douville-Johnston Corporation 49 FTE
NAT-SIZE Royal Oaks 49 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: 2022, 2021, 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.