Chickens, processing, fresh, frozen, canned, or cooked (except baby and pet food) · Oklahoma

OKC Processing Plant

Oklahoma City, OK · ~158 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

OKC Processing Plant runs at 78% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Chickens, processing, fresh, frozen, canned, or cooked (except baby and pet food) workplace, earning a grade B.

OKC Processing Plant: 2.6 TCR = 78% of Chickens, processing, fresh, frozen, canned, or cooked (except baby and pet food) BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

OKC Processing Plant safety composite

OKC Processing Plant scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 65% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 31%), 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).

D

50/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.58 per 100 workers

Safer than 65% of industry peers

DART rate
F 2.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 54% 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%).

OKC Processing Plant held a steady TCR band

OKC Processing Plant's TCR held near 0.1 from 2.6 in 2020 to 2.4 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 2.8 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.94× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2020=2.6 · 2021=2.6 · 2022=2.8 · 2023=2.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 311615 · Oklahoma City, OK AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 2.6 · 78% of ind

  • DART 2.4 DART
  • RANK #3/12
  • PHOTO Batesville Processing
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 15 inj
  • SIZE ~158 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Batesville Processing (0.0 TCR gap)

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

OKC Processing Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows OKC Processing Plant averages 2.6 TCR (78% of the Chickens, processing, fresh, frozen, canned, or cooked (except baby and pet food) BLS benchmark).

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

OKC Processing Plant TCR series: 2020=2.6 · 2021=2.6 · 2022=2.8 · 2023=2.4 · BLS 3.3

Where OKC Processing Plant falls in its industry

509 Chickens, processing, fresh, f establishments

Safer than 65% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Oklahoma alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 12 Chickens, processing, fresh, f employers in Oklahoma.

OKC Processing Plant (158 employees, TCR 2.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 619 employees and a TCR of 3.5 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 05001,0001,5002,000 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate OKC Processing Plant
OKC Processing Plant (158 employees, TCR 2.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 619 employees and a TCR of 3.5

OKC Processing Plant has fewer employees than the Chickens, processing, fresh, frozen, can median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.5. 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
2023 2.4 2.4 3 0 0
2022 2.8 2.1 4 0 0
2021 2.6 2.6 4 0 0
2020 2.6 2.6 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

311615 · OK · Oklahoma City

509 Chickens, processing, fresh, frozen, canned, or cooked (except baby and pet food) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 5,320 rated employers in Oklahoma with headcount on file · 1,293 employers in Oklahoma City, OK · 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 Batesville Processing 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR George's Harrisonburg Processing Plant 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Petaluma Plant 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Danville processing plant 2.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Utility Tri-State, Inc. 158 FTE
STATE-SIZE QNT Tulsa 158 FTE
STATE-SIZE SODEXO AT ST ANTHONY HOSPITAL -ES 158 FTE
STATE-SIZE Feed the Children 158 FTE
CITY-NEAR North America Fulfillment Centers (FCs) : OKC1 3,710 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - OKC1 3,462 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. Anthony Hospital 3,417 FTE
CITY-NEAR OK005 3,027 FTE
NAT-TCR Ash Grove Drive 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Anning-Johnson Company Southern California 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR R. D. Bean Inc. 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR BT Charlotte 2.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Muldrow Further Processing 158 FTE
NAT-SIZE TerraFirma Foundation Systems 158 FTE
NAT-SIZE Upstate Shredding 158 FTE
NAT-SIZE Siri and Son Farms, Inc. 158 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.