Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers · Georgia

Metal Coaters of Georgia

Marietta, GA · ~80 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Metal Coaters of Georgia runs at 163% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers workplace, earning a grade D.

Metal Coaters of Georgia: 5.4 TCR = 163% of Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Metal Coaters of Georgia safety composite

Metal Coaters of Georgia scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 12%), 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

31/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.37 per 100 workers

Safer than 35% of industry peers

DART rate
F 6.33 per 100 workers

Safer than 12% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Metal Coaters of Georgia: 5.2 → 7.2 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 7.2 TCR · DART/TCR 1.18× in 2018

Metal Coaters of Georgia's TCR rose 2.0 from 5.2 in 2016 to 7.2 in 2018. In 2018, DART was 1.18× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332812 · Marietta, GA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 5.4 · 163% of ind

  • DART 6.3 DART
  • RANK #11/13
  • PHOTO Max Coating, Inc. At…
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 17 inj
  • SIZE ~80 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Max Coating, Inc. Atlanta (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Metal Coaters of Georgia in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Metal Coaters of Georgia averages 5.4 TCR (163% of the Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers BLS benchmark).

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

Metal Coaters of Georgia TCR series: 2016=5.2 · 2017=3.7 · 2018=7.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Metal Coaters of Georgia falls in its industry

646 Metal Coating, Engraving (exce establishments

Safer than 35% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Georgia alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #11 safest of 13 Metal Coating, Engraving (exce employers in Georgia.

Metal Coaters of Georgia (80 employees, TCR 5.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 58 employees and a TCR of 3.9 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 0200400600 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Metal Coaters of Georgia
Metal Coaters of Georgia (80 employees, TCR 5.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 58 employees and a TCR of 3.9

Metal Coaters of Georgia has more employees than the Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.9. 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
2018 7.2 6.3 8 0 0
2017 3.7 3.7 4 0 0
2016 5.2 1.0 5 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332812 · GA · Marietta

646 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 14,941 rated employers in Georgia with headcount on file · 350 employers in Marietta, GA · 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 Max Coating, Inc. Atlanta 5.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Crystal Finishing Systems - Schofield 5.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ranews AIC Waterloo 5.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR R & R Powder Coating, Inc. 5.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Dawson GP Shelling Plant 80 FTE
STATE-SIZE Olam Americas Shelling 80 FTE
STATE-SIZE SRS Main 80 FTE
STATE-SIZE 227 - ATLANTA FIRE 80 FTE
CITY-NEAR MARIETTA PACKERS 9,165 FTE
CITY-NEAR WellStar Kennestone Hospital 5,581 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lockheed Martin Corporation US GA Marietta S Cobb Dr (1169) 5,310 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lockheed Martin Corporation Marietta Campus (1169) 5,205 FTE
NAT-TCR Bakery Feeds Butler 5.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Blaine MN 5.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Plant 25 5.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Camp Verde (Azcam) 5.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE South Place SNF D/B/A South Place 80 FTE
NAT-SIZE Riverbend Medical Group-Chicopee 80 FTE
NAT-SIZE CNC SNF Operations, LLC D/B/A Colonial Nursing & Rehabilitation 80 FTE
NAT-SIZE Fredericksburg 80 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.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.