Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) · New Jersey

New Jersey

East Rutherford, NJ · ~1,660 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
3.6
Avg TCR
6.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

New Jersey runs at 56% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) workplace, earning a grade B.

New Jersey: 3.6 TCR = 56% of Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) BLS 6.5 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

New Jersey safety composite

New Jersey scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 89% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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).

B

79/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 3.62 per 100 workers

Safer than 87% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0.67 per 100 workers

Safer than 89% 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

−5.2

2016→2017

New Jersey injury rate improved

New Jersey's TCR fell 5.2 from 6.2 in 2016 to 1.0 in 2017. Peak filing year was 2016 at 6.2 TCR. In 2017, DART was 0.19× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.2 · 2017=1.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 492110 · East Rutherford, NJ AT/BELOW-IND · LARGE

Grade B · TCR 3.6 · 56% of ind

  • DART 0.7 DART
  • RANK #50/211
  • PHOTO 724010000
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 24 inj
  • SIZE ~1,660 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 724010000 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

New Jersey in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows New Jersey averages 3.6 TCR (56% of the Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) BLS benchmark).

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

New Jersey TCR series: 2016=6.2 · 2017=1 · BLS 6.5

Where New Jersey falls in its industry

6,679 Courier services (i.e., interc establishments

Safer than 87% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 8.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New Jersey alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #50 safest of 211 Courier services (i.e., interc employers in New Jersey.

New Jersey (1,660 employees, TCR 3.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 8.0 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 01,0002,0003,0004,000 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate New Jersey
New Jersey (1,660 employees, TCR 3.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 113 employees and a TCR of 8.0

New Jersey has more employees than the Courier services (i.e., intercity networ median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 8.0. 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
2017 1.0 0.7 15 0 0
2016 6.2 4.8 9 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

492110 · NJ · East Rutherford

6,679 Courier services (i.e., intercity network) (except establishments operating under a universal service obligation) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 11,201 rated employers in New Jersey with headcount on file · 39 employers in East Rutherford, NJ · 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 724010000 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Door Desk Deliveries LLC 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR HARRISON (ARHAR) 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR NEWARK AIRPORT (NJNEW) 3.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE LOCATION 40014 1,662 FTE
STATE-SIZE Jefferson Health NJ - Washington Twp. - Formerly Kennedy Health 1,662 FTE
STATE-SIZE NEW JERSEY NDC_1433589 1,653 FTE
STATE-SIZE Stryker- Mahwah 1,670 FTE
CITY-NEAR New Meadowlands Sportservice, Inc. 913 FTE
CITY-NEAR MetLife Stadium 759 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ameream NJP LLC 652 FTE
CITY-NEAR New Meadowlands Stadium Company, LLC / MetLife Stadium 395 FTE
NAT-TCR Keystone Automotive Ind Alcoa 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Fort Wayne (Infye) 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Ambassador Services, LLC @ Fbc-Tuscaloosa 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Ripley's Believe It Or Not - San Antonio, TX 3.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Presence Resurrection Medical Center 1,660 FTE
NAT-SIZE Osceola Regional Medical Center 1,660 FTE
NAT-SIZE 2001 Rankin Road 1,660 FTE
NAT-SIZE Philadelphia 1,661 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: 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.