Boxes, wood, manufacturing · Massachusetts

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA

Lancaster, MA · ~43 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
7.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA runs at 224% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Boxes, wood, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA: 7.4 TCR = 224% of Boxes, wood, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA safety composite

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 41%), 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

45/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 7.38 per 100 workers

Safer than 41% of industry peers

DART rate
D 3.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 47% 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

−0.4

2016→2017

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA injury rate improved

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA's TCR fell 0.4 from 7.6 in 2016 to 7.2 in 2017. Peak filing year was 2016 at 7.6 TCR. In 2017, DART was 0.49× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=7.6 · 2017=7.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 321920 · Lancaster, MA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 7.4 · 224% of ind

  • DART 3.6 DART
  • RANK #11/20
  • PHOTO Propak - Red Bluff, CA
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 7 inj
  • SIZE ~43 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Propak - Red Bluff, CA (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA averages 7.4 TCR (224% of the Boxes, wood, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA TCR series: 2016=7.6 · 2017=7.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA falls in its industry

952 Boxes, wood, manufacturing establishments

Safer than 41% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #11 safest of 20 Boxes, wood, manufacturing employers in Massachusetts.

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA (43 employees, TCR 7.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 51 employees and a TCR of 6.3 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 0100200300400500 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA
Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA (43 employees, TCR 7.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 51 employees and a TCR of 6.3

Rand-Whitney Packaging Corp., Lancaster, MA has fewer employees than the Boxes, wood, manufacturing median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.3. 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
2017 7.2 3.6 4 0 0
2016 7.6 5.1 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

321920 · MA · Lancaster

952 Boxes, wood, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 13 employers in Lancaster, MA · 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 Propak - Red Bluff, CA 7.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pal-Serv of Oklahoma City 7.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Clarke Packing Bartlett 7.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Kamps Erlanger 7.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Joe Czajkowski Farm/Lakeside Organics of Hadley 43 FTE
STATE-SIZE Guaranteed Builders and Developers Inc 43 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sustainable Comfort, Inc 43 FTE
STATE-SIZE Acella 43 FTE
CITY-NEAR RFK Community Alliance 513 FTE
CITY-NEAR Doctor Franklin Perkins School 354 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ron Bouchard's Auto Sales, Inc 134 FTE
CITY-NEAR River Terrace Operator LLC 99 FTE
NAT-TCR Alliance Industries - Marinette 7.4 TCR
NAT-TCR NAPP Timber & Lumber 7.4 TCR
NAT-TCR 483 ABC Supply Co., Inc 7.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Iberia Extended Care Hospital 7.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Hampton Inn Coconut Grove 43 FTE
NAT-SIZE Springhill Suites 43 FTE
NAT-SIZE Yokohama Tire Corporation - Columbus DC 43 FTE
NAT-SIZE HBSHSENY79 43 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: 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.