Delivery service (except as part of intercity carrier network, U.S. Postal Service) · California

Pyramid Logistics, Inc.

Irvine, CA · ~94 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.5
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. runs at 144% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Delivery service (except as part of intercity carrier network, U.S. Postal Service) workplace, earning a grade D.

Pyramid Logistics, Inc.: 6.5 TCR = 144% of Delivery service (except as part of intercity carrier network, U.S. Postal Service) BLS 4.5 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. safety composite

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 86% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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).

C

74/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 6.48 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% of industry peers

DART rate
B 2.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 86% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−6.7

2022→2024

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. injury rate improved

Pyramid Logistics, Inc.'s TCR fell 6.7 from 10.2 in 2022 to 3.5 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 10.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.36× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=10.2 · 2023=5.8 · 2024=3.5

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 492210 · Irvine, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 6.5 · 144% of ind

  • DART 2.3 DART
  • RANK #40/168
  • PHOTO Salute Logistics LLC
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 10 inj
  • SIZE ~94 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Salute Logistics LLC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Pyramid Logistics, Inc. averages 6.5 TCR (144% of the Delivery service (except as part of intercity carrier network, U.S. Postal Service) BLS benchmark).

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

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. TCR series: 2022=10.2 · 2023=5.8 · 2024=3.5 · BLS 4.5

Where Pyramid Logistics, Inc. falls in its industry

1,452 Delivery service (except as pa establishments

Safer than 78% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 11.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #40 safest of 168 Delivery service (except as pa employers in California.

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. (94 employees, TCR 6.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 89 employees and a TCR of 11.8 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 0200400600800 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate Pyramid Logistics, Inc.
Pyramid Logistics, Inc. (94 employees, TCR 6.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 89 employees and a TCR of 11.8

Pyramid Logistics, Inc. has more employees than the Delivery service (except as part of inte median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 11.8. 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 3.5 2.3 3 0 0
2023 5.8 5.8 4 0 0
2022 10.2 10.2 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

492210 · CA · Irvine

1,452 Delivery service (except as part of intercity carrier network, U.S. Postal Service) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 622 employers in Irvine, CA · 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 Salute Logistics LLC 6.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rapid Route Inc - AMAZON SKOKIE 6.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Humble Root International 6.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR J and CO LLC 6.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE MORALES FARM LABOR SERVICE 94 FTE
STATE-SIZE Fondomonte CA - Blythe Farm 94 FTE
STATE-SIZE Robinson Enterprises, Inc 94 FTE
STATE-SIZE Javier Martinez Contracting 94 FTE
CITY-NEAR UC Irvine 16,029 FTE
CITY-NEAR CA-10 4,926 FTE
CITY-NEAR Edwards Lifesciences 4,189 FTE
CITY-NEAR Johnson and Johnson MDD CSS Irvine 3,775 FTE
NAT-TCR Trinity Services Group - Lane 6.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Creative Community Living Services North Central 6.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Spanish Hills Wellness Suites 6.5 TCR
NAT-TCR The Page Seed Company Inc. 6.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE OSCO Industries, Inc. - Jackson Division 94 FTE
NAT-SIZE The Lodge at Old Trail 94 FTE
NAT-SIZE Materion - Brewster 94 FTE
NAT-SIZE Provo 94 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.