Aircraft engine and engine parts (except carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves) manufacturing · Michigan

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton

Norton Shores, MI · ~374 workers · 2 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

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton runs at 28% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Aircraft engine and engine parts (except carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton: 0.9 TCR = 28% of Aircraft engine and engine parts (except carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton safety composite

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 81% 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

70/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 0.93 per 100 workers

Safer than 72% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 81% 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%).

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton held a steady TCR band

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton's TCR held near 0.3 from 1.1 in 2023 to 0.8 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 1.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2023=1.1 · 2024=0.8

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336412 · Norton Shores, MI AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.9 · 28% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #2/20
  • PHOTO Honda Aero, Inc.
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~374 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Honda Aero, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton averages 0.9 TCR (28% of the Aircraft engine and engine parts (except carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton TCR series: 2023=1.1 · 2024=0.8 · BLS 3.3

Where Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton falls in its industry

366 Aircraft engine and engine par establishments

Safer than 72% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 20 Aircraft engine and engine par employers in Michigan.

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton (374 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 155 employees and a TCR of 1.6 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 02,0004,0006,0008,000 012345 Average employees Total Case Rate Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton
Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton (374 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 155 employees and a TCR of 1.6

Johnson Technology, Inc. - Norton has more employees than the Aircraft engine and engine parts (except median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.6. 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
2024 0.8 0.0 2 1 0
2023 1.1 0.3 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336412 · MI · Norton Shores

366 Aircraft engine and engine parts (except carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 40 employers in Norton Shores, 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 Honda Aero, Inc. 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR P&W Columbus, Georgia Site (Main Campus) 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Enjet Aero Newington 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR DFW Center 0.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Eby-Brown Detroit 374 FTE
STATE-SIZE Cooper Standard Auburn Hills South 374 FTE
STATE-SIZE Litehouse Inc. - Lowell 373 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bell's Brewery 373 FTE
CITY-NEAR Supply Chain : Norton Shores, MI 369 FTE
CITY-NEAR MillerKnoll Muskegon 358 FTE
CITY-NEAR Knoll 312 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lavoi Corporation dba Epi Breads 278 FTE
NAT-TCR PVE C3 - Product Validation Engineering 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Lpr Construction 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Potters Industries LLC 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Oswego Harbor Power 0.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Gibson Electric 374 FTE
NAT-SIZE VCU Health System Authority 374 FTE
NAT-SIZE Stryker Wright - Arlington, TN 374 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kawasaki TN 374 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: 2024, 2023. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.