Farm product warehousing and storage, refrigerated · Oregon

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland

Portland, OR · ~384 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
6.9
Avg TCR
5.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland runs at 119% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Farm product warehousing and storage, refrigerated workplace, earning a grade C.

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland: 6.9 TCR = 119% of Farm product warehousing and storage, refrigerated BLS 5.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland safety composite

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 20%), 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

30/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 6.91 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% of industry peers

DART rate
F 4.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 25% 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%).

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland held a steady TCR band

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland's TCR held near 0.0 from 5.2 in 2016 to 5.3 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2018 at 11.0 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0.67× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=5.2 · 2017=8.5 · 2018=11.0 · 2019=4.6 · 2020=5.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 493120 · Portland, OR ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 6.9 · 119% of ind

  • DART 4.6 DART
  • RANK #13/18
  • PHOTO HR Metrics Minooka
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 123 inj
  • SIZE ~384 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: HR Metrics Minooka (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland averages 6.9 TCR (119% of the Farm product warehousing and storage, refrigerated BLS benchmark).

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

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland TCR series: 2016=5.2 · 2017=8.5 · 2018=11 · 2019=4.6 · 2020=5.3 · BLS 5.8

Where Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland falls in its industry

1,039 Farm product warehousing and s establishments

Safer than 20% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Oregon alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #13 safest of 18 Farm product warehousing and s employers in Oregon.

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland (384 employees, TCR 6.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 68 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 05001,0001,500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland
Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland (384 employees, TCR 6.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 68 employees and a TCR of 3.9

Pacific Coast Fruit Co-Portland has more employees than the Farm product warehousing and storage, re 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
2020 5.3 4.6 13 3 0
2019 4.6 4.0 16 0 0
2018 11.0 9.1 37 4 0
2017 8.5 7.7 32 0 0
2016 5.2 4.0 25 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

493120 · OR · Portland

1,039 Farm product warehousing and storage, refrigerated employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 8,031 rated employers in Oregon with headcount on file · 1,728 employers in Portland, OR · 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 HR Metrics Minooka 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Allentown - PRW 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR CREST Logistics-WA 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Elizabeth II 6.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE 701-00242 384 FTE
STATE-SIZE Siltronic Corporation 386 FTE
STATE-SIZE TriMet Merlo Operations Facility 386 FTE
STATE-SIZE 1784 381 FTE
CITY-NEAR OHSU Main Campus 18,003 FTE
CITY-NEAR OR349 PROVIDENCE ST VINCENT MEDICAL CTR-PORTLA 4,033 FTE
CITY-NEAR OR346 PROVIDENCE PORTLAND MEDICAL CTR-PORTLAND 3,684 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2252-00000530 3,498 FTE
NAT-TCR Cannon North 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR 118 - Mesa Branch - Rsg 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Westminster-Canterbury on Chesapeake Bay 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Coyote Ridge Construction 6.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE TIMET- Morgantown 384 FTE
NAT-SIZE CA223 384 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kirkland's Distribution Center #500 384 FTE
NAT-SIZE NorthStar Battery Plant 1 384 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: 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.