Employer · North Carolina

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls

Kinston, NC · ~140 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.9
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls runs at 27% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical industry workplace, earning a grade A.

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls: 0.9 TCR = 27% of industry BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls safety composite

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 97% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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).

B

81/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.88 per 100 workers

Safer than 97% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 83% 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

−1.9

2020→2023

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls injury rate improved

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls's TCR fell 1.9 from 1.9 in 2020 to 0.0 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2020 at 1.9 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2020=1.9 · 2022=0.7 · 2023=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332322 · Kinston, NC AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.9 · 27% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #2/37
  • PHOTO ASC Johnson Controls
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~140 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: ASC Johnson Controls (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls averages 0.9 TCR (27% of the industry BLS benchmark).

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

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls TCR series: 2020=1.9 · 2022=0.7 · 2023=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls falls in its industry

1,158 industry establishments

Safer than 97% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 37 industry employers in North Carolina.

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls (140 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 58 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 050100150200 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls
Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls (140 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 58 employees and a TCR of 4.5

Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Field Controls has more employees than the industry median and a lower 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
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.7 0.7 1 0 0
2020 1.9 0.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332322 · NC · Kinston

1,158 industry employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 86 employers in Kinston, NC · 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 ASC Johnson Controls 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR CONTECH PDXMP 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR PAC - GA 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Alloy Specialties - Blackstone 0.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Bernhard MCC L.L.C. RNC 140 FTE
STATE-SIZE Central Carolina Air Conditioning 140 FTE
STATE-SIZE 6921-05000 140 FTE
STATE-SIZE ATEX Technologies Inc 140 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sanderson Farms Kinston Processing 1,564 FTE
CITY-NEAR Caswell Developmental Center 1,256 FTE
CITY-NEAR UNC Lenoir Health Care 843 FTE
CITY-NEAR UNC Health Lenoir 744 FTE
NAT-TCR Allied Power Services - Exelon, Clinton Station 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Big Lots Store #226 LOUISVILLE, KY 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR New England Construction Company Inc. 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Brady SoCal Inc 0.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Davies 140 FTE
NAT-SIZE Liberty Excavators, Inc. 140 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ricor Inc. 140 FTE
NAT-SIZE Abilities Unlimited 140 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, 2020. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.