Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade · Minnesota

Nico Products

Minneapolis, MN · ~117 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.0
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Nico Products runs at 303% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade workplace, earning a grade F.

Nico Products: 10.0 TCR = 303% of Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Nico Products safety composite

Nico Products scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 8%), 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

20/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.99 per 100 workers

Safer than 8% of industry peers

DART rate
F 5.85 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%).

TCR Δ

−5.0

2016→2024

Nico Products injury rate improved

Nico Products's TCR fell 5.0 from 10.8 in 2016 to 5.8 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 14.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.59× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=10.8 · 2017=11.8 · 2018=7.9 · 2019=6.7 · 2020=6.4 · 2021=13.6 · 2022=14.5 · 2023=12.4 · 2024=5.8

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332813 · Minneapolis, MN ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 10.0 · 303% of ind

  • DART 5.8 DART
  • RANK #22/29
  • PHOTO Southern Plating Inc
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 93 inj
  • SIZE ~117 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Southern Plating Inc (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Nico Products in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Nico Products averages 10.0 TCR (303% of the Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade BLS benchmark).

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

Nico Products TCR series: 2016=10.8 · 2017=11.8 · 2018=7.9 · 2019=6.7 · 2020=6.4 · 2021=13.6 · 2022=14.5 · 2023=12.4 · 2024=5.8 · BLS 3.3

Where Nico Products falls in its industry

585 Anodizing metals and metal pro establishments

Safer than 8% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #22 safest of 29 Anodizing metals and metal pro employers in Minnesota.

Nico Products (117 employees, TCR 10.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 4.0 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 0200400600 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Nico Products
Nico Products (117 employees, TCR 10.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 4.0

Nico Products has more employees than the Anodizing metals and metal products for median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.0. 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
2024 5.8 5.8 5 0 0
2023 12.4 12.4 9 5 0
2022 14.5 8.5 15 2 0
2021 13.6 9.6 16 1 0
2020 6.4 2.7 6 1 0
2019 6.7 3.4 8 0 0
2018 7.9 4.4 8 1 0
2017 11.8 7.6 14 0 0
2016 10.8 6.3 12 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332813 · MN · Minneapolis

585 Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 1,321 employers in Minneapolis, MN · 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 Southern Plating Inc 10.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR PRECISION POLISH LLC 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Modern Plating Corporation 9.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR QCP Enterprises Brunswick 10.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE WLS NextEra Analytics St Paul 117 FTE
STATE-SIZE Gardner Builders 117 FTE
STATE-SIZE Chard Excavating 117 FTE
STATE-SIZE Laketown Electric Corporation 117 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Minnesota Twin Cities 22,522 FTE
CITY-NEAR MN950 MN TELECOMMUTER 12,021 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0501 - City Center 8,459 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hennepin County Medical Center 7,030 FTE
NAT-TCR Sonesta Select San Jose Airport 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Central Transport - 212 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR TapeCase 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR OEM Tube Assemblies - Clarksville 10.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE G & J Heavy Haul, Inc. 117 FTE
NAT-SIZE Haskells Hardware LLC 117 FTE
NAT-SIZE Azpre - Prescott Valley 117 FTE
NAT-SIZE Flvro - Vero Beach 117 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: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 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.