Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing · Pennsylvania

Matthews Marking Systems

Name: Matthews Marking Systems Workplace Safety Data
Creator: PlainSafetyScore
License: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Pittsburgh, PA · ~78 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

Compiled by PlainSafetyScore · August 25, 2026

B
Good Safety Record: 2.1
Avg TCR: 3.3
Industry avg: 0
Fatalities

Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Matthews Marking Systems runs at 63% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing workplace, earning a grade B.

Matthews Marking Systems: 2.1 TCR = 63% of Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Matthews Marking Systems safety composite

Matthews Marking Systems scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 59% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 39%), 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).

50/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR): C 2.07 per 100 workers

Safer than 59% of industry peers
DART rate: D 1.28 per 100 workers

Safer than 39% 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

−1.1

2016→2019

Matthews Marking Systems injury rate improved

Matthews Marking Systems's TCR fell 1.1 from 2.4 in 2016 to 1.3 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2018 at 2.5 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.62× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.4 · 2018=2.5 · 2019=1.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 333993 · Pittsburgh, PA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.1 · 63% of ind

DART 1.3 DART
RANK #5/14
PHOTO New England Machinery
BOOK 3y book
INJ 5 inj
SIZE ~78 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: New England Machinery (0.0 TCR gap)

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

This site

2.1
New England Ma

2.1
CMC Bloomingto

2.1
Latitude 36 Fo

2.1
Campbell Wrapp

2

What this shows Matthews Marking Systems averages 2.1 TCR (63% of the Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing BLS benchmark).

Matthews Marking Systems TCR series: 2016=2.4 · 2018=2.5 · 2019=1.3 · BLS 3.3

Where Matthews Marking Systems falls in its industry

269 Labeling (i.e., packaging) mac establishments

Safer than 59% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.4.

Grade B

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #5 safest of 14 Labeling (i.e., packaging) mac employers in Pennsylvania.

Matthews Marking Systems (78 employees, TCR 2.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 2.4

Matthews Marking Systems has more employees than the Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery man median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.4. 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
2019	1.3	1.3	1
2018	2.5	0.0	2
2016	2.4	1.2	2

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

333993 · PA · Pittsburgh

269 Labeling (i.e., packaging) machinery manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 1,170 employers in Pittsburgh, PA · 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	New England Machinery	BRADENTON, FL	2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR	CMC Bloomington/Normal	NORMAL, IL	2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR	Latitude 36 Foods Ohio	FAIRFIELD, OH	2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR	Campbell Wrapper Corp	DE PERE, WI	2.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE	Manheim Egg	MANHEIM	78 FTE
STATE-SIZE	UGI Penn Natural Gas Archbald	ARCHBALD	78 FTE
STATE-SIZE	Charter Homes Building Company, Inc.	LANCASTER	78 FTE
STATE-SIZE	Bath Saver, Inc. 5	ETTERS	78 FTE
CITY-NEAR	United States Steel COrporation	Pittsburgh	15,229 FTE
CITY-NEAR	University of Pittsburgh- Oakland	Pittsburgh	14,135 FTE
CITY-NEAR	UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside (PUH)	Pittsburgh	13,900 FTE
CITY-NEAR	University of Pittsburgh-Oakland	Pittsburgh	13,208 FTE
NAT-TCR	751 - Chicago	Gurnee, IL	2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR	District 6	Fresno, CA	2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR	Mayfield - Kingsport	Kingsport, TN	2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR	Flint Group Weyers Cave	Weyers Cave, VA	2.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE	Canterbury Gardens Independent and Assisted Living	Aurora, CO	78 FTE
NAT-SIZE	Arkadelphia	Arkadelphia, AR	78 FTE
NAT-SIZE	Regional Zone -Tampa, FL	Riverview, FL	78 FTE
NAT-SIZE	Springfield Plastics, Inc.	Auburn, IL	78 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: 2019, 2018, 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.