Pads and protectors (e.g., ironing board, mattress, table), textile, made from purchased fabrics or felts · North Carolina

Keeco Fayetteville

Fayetteville, NC · ~236 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.2
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Keeco Fayetteville runs at 278% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Pads and protectors (e.g., ironing board, mattress, table), textile, made from purchased fabrics or felts workplace, earning a grade F.

Keeco Fayetteville: 9.2 TCR = 278% of Pads and protectors (e.g., ironing board, mattress, table), textile, made from purchased fabrics or felts BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Keeco Fayetteville safety composite

Keeco Fayetteville scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 6%), 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

19/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.17 per 100 workers

Safer than 12% of industry peers

DART rate
F 9.04 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Keeco Fayetteville: 4.1 → 14.2 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 14.2 TCR · DART/TCR 0.99× in 2022

Keeco Fayetteville's TCR rose 10.1 from 4.1 in 2021 to 14.2 in 2022. In 2022, DART was 0.99× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 314120 · Fayetteville, NC ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 9.2 · 278% of ind

  • DART 9.0 DART
  • RANK #7/8
  • PHOTO Youngstown Plant
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 29 inj
  • SIZE ~236 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Youngstown Plant (0.2 TCR gap)

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

Keeco Fayetteville in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Keeco Fayetteville averages 9.2 TCR (278% of the Pads and protectors (e.g., ironing board, mattress, table), textile, made from purchased fabrics or felts BLS benchmark).

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

Keeco Fayetteville TCR series: 2021=4.1 · 2022=14.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Keeco Fayetteville falls in its industry

97 Pads and protectors (e.g., iro establishments

Safer than 12% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #7 safest of 8 Pads and protectors (e.g., iro employers in North Carolina.

Keeco Fayetteville (236 employees, TCR 9.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 93 employees and a TCR of 3.8 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 0100200300 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Keeco Fayetteville
Keeco Fayetteville (236 employees, TCR 9.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 93 employees and a TCR of 3.8

Keeco Fayetteville has more employees than the Pads and protectors (e.g., ironing board median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.8. 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 14.2 9.0 19 3 0
2021 4.1 4.1 10 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

314120 · NC · Fayetteville

97 Pads and protectors (e.g., ironing board, mattress, table), textile, made from purchased fabrics or felts employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 317 employers in Fayetteville, 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 Youngstown Plant 9.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR KY-02 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Franco Manufacturing Company, Inc. 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR CA-02 8.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE Pike Virginia Statewide Operations 236 FTE
STATE-SIZE NC/SC (50) 236 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wagram, NC 236 FTE
STATE-SIZE Jabil Packaging Solutions 236 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cape Fear Valley Health System/Cumberland County 5,925 FTE
CITY-NEAR Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company - Fayetteville 2,118 FTE
CITY-NEAR County of Cumberland 2,104 FTE
CITY-NEAR Goodyear Fayetteville 2,044 FTE
NAT-TCR 4028-NV02 9.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Country Store Gillette 9.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Choctaw General Hospital 9.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Cascade Asset Management - Indianapolis 9.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Armstrong World Industries Pensacola Plant 236 FTE
NAT-SIZE 0621 - Estero Fl Whse 236 FTE
NAT-SIZE 0248 - Montgomeryville Pa Whse 236 FTE
NAT-SIZE 6458-ZEVR 236 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.