Cushions, carpet and rug, urethane and other foam plastics (except polystrene), manufacturing · California

LPCC - Ontario Rebond

Name: LPCC - Ontario Rebond Workplace Safety Data
Creator: PlainSafetyScore
License: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Ontario, CA · ~83 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

Compiled by PlainSafetyScore · August 25, 2026

C
Average Safety Record: 3.2
Avg TCR: 3.3
Industry avg: 0
Fatalities

Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

LPCC - Ontario Rebond runs at 97% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Cushions, carpet and rug, urethane and other foam plastics (except polystrene), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

LPCC - Ontario Rebond: 3.2 TCR = 97% of Cushions, carpet and rug, urethane and other foam plastics (except polystrene), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

LPCC - Ontario Rebond safety composite

LPCC - Ontario Rebond scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 47%), 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).

48/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR): D 3.2 per 100 workers

Safer than 48% of industry peers
DART rate: D 1.62 per 100 workers

Safer than 47% 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

−0.9

2016→2018

LPCC - Ontario Rebond injury rate improved

LPCC - Ontario Rebond's TCR fell 0.9 from 2.6 in 2016 to 1.6 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2017 at 5.4 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0.51× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.6 · 2017=5.4 · 2018=1.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326150 · Ontario, CA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.2 · 97% of ind

DART 1.6 DART
RANK #12/26
PHOTO Creative Foam - Fenway
BOOK 3y book
INJ 12 inj
SIZE ~83 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Creative Foam - Fenway (0.0 TCR gap)

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

This site

3.2
Creative Foam

3.2
Keystone Foam

3.2
Woodbridge Cor

3.2
Exemplary Foam

3.2

What this shows LPCC - Ontario Rebond averages 3.2 TCR (97% of the Cushions, carpet and rug, urethane and other foam plastics (except polystrene), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

LPCC - Ontario Rebond TCR series: 2016=2.6 · 2017=5.4 · 2018=1.6 · BLS 3.3

Where LPCC - Ontario Rebond falls in its industry

474 Cushions, carpet and rug, uret establishments

Safer than 48% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.1.

Grade C

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #12 safest of 26 Cushions, carpet and rug, uret employers in California.

LPCC - Ontario Rebond (83 employees, TCR 3.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 76 employees and a TCR of 3.1

LPCC - Ontario Rebond has more employees than the Cushions, carpet and rug, urethane and o median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.1. 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
2018	1.6	1.6	2
2017	5.4	5.4	7
2016	2.6	1.7	3

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326150 · CA · Ontario

474 Cushions, carpet and rug, urethane and other foam plastics (except polystrene), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 599 employers in Ontario, CA · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel	Establishment	Place	Metric
NAICS-TCR	Creative Foam - Fenway	FENTON, MI	3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR	Keystone Foam Manufacturing plant	DERRY, PA	3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR	Woodbridge Corporation	RIVERSIDE, MO	3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR	Exemplary Foam	ELKHART, IN	3.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE	Sunny Slope Trees	ANAHEIM	83 FTE
STATE-SIZE	Stone Land Co. (Grangeville)	LEMOORE	83 FTE
STATE-SIZE	Stone Land Co. (Stratford Shop)	STRATFORD	83 FTE
STATE-SIZE	Stone Land Co. (Lemoore Shop)	LEMOORE	83 FTE
CITY-NEAR	Prime Healthcare Services Inc. Location: St. Mary's, Passaic LLC 46-3499370 (HP29)	Ontario	10,997 FTE
CITY-NEAR	CAONA - ONTARIO HUB	Ontario	4,372 FTE
CITY-NEAR	ONTARIO HUB (CAONA)	Ontario	3,354 FTE
CITY-NEAR	Atlantic Solutions Group Inc, Inc. DBA Empire Workforce Solutions	Ontario	3,240 FTE
NAT-TCR	Raft River Malta Office	Malta, ID	3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR	Central Receiving	Le Mars, IA	3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR	All American Poly Corp.	Piscataway, NJ	3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR	4Front Engineered Solutions Mequon	Mequon, WI	3.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE	StoneHouse Marketing	Norman, OK	83 FTE
NAT-SIZE	4818-48180052-909 West 62 St-Wc	Shreveport, LA	83 FTE
NAT-SIZE	LifeSkills Industries-Warren County	Bowling Green, KY	83 FTE
NAT-SIZE	Controlled Environment Certification Services Inc.	Bethlehem, PA	83 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: 2018, 2017, 2016. 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.