Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing · Alabama

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing

Russellville, AL · ~1,028 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
6.9
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing runs at 209% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing workplace, earning a grade F.

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing: 6.9 TCR = 209% of Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing safety composite

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 54% 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

34/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 6.9 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.11 per 100 workers

Safer than 36% 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%).

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing held a steady TCR band

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing's TCR held near 0.3 from 6.7 in 2023 to 7.1 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 0.31× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2023=6.7 · 2024=7.1

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 311615 · Russellville, AL ABOVE-IND · LARGE

Grade F · TCR 6.9 · 209% of ind

  • DART 2.1 DART
  • RANK #49/55
  • PHOTO Eufaula Fresh Plant
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 64 inj
  • SIZE ~1,028 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Eufaula Fresh Plant (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing averages 6.9 TCR (209% of the Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing BLS benchmark).

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

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing TCR series: 2023=6.7 · 2024=7.1 · BLS 3.3

Where Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing falls in its industry

509 Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, establishments

Safer than 20% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Alabama alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #49 safest of 55 Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, employers in Alabama.

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing (1,028 employees, TCR 6.9) 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 Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing
Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing (1,028 employees, TCR 6.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 619 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Pilgrims Pride - Central Processing has more employees than the Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, fr median and a higher 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
2024 7.1 2.1 34 43 0
2023 6.7 2.9 30 19 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

311615 · AL · Russellville

509 Poultry (e.g., canned, cooked, fresh, frozen) processing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,418 rated employers in Alabama with headcount on file · 35 employers in Russellville, AL · 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 Eufaula Fresh Plant 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Grimaud Farms plant 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Koch Foods 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR TFC POULTRY WINCHESTER 7.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE ALMON - MONTGOMERY 1,025 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sanmina Corporation - Huntsville 1,021 FTE
STATE-SIZE WM 7067 1,017 FTE
STATE-SIZE THOMAS HOSPITAL 1,012 FTE
CITY-NEAR Pilgrims Russellville Complex 1,094 FTE
CITY-NEAR Innovative Hearth Products 390 FTE
CITY-NEAR Southern Homes Russellville 319 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 403 292 FTE
NAT-TCR Addington Place of Burlington 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR ABF Freight 060 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR UMMC West Bank West Bldg 6.9 TCR
NAT-TCR London Facility 6.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE CDCR R. A. McGee Training Center - 048 1,028 FTE
NAT-SIZE PA00000033 Newton Square Donation Center 1,028 FTE
NAT-SIZE Pa00000032 Goodwill Industries - Swarthm 1,028 FTE
NAT-SIZE Pa00000031 Goodwill Industries - Concord 1,028 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.