Packaging, plastics (e.g., blister, bubble), manufacturing · North Carolina

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC

Charlotte, NC · ~185 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.8
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC runs at 146% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Packaging, plastics (e.g., blister, bubble), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade D.

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC: 4.8 TCR = 146% of Packaging, plastics (e.g., blister, bubble), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC safety composite

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 22%), 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

33/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.83 per 100 workers

Safer than 33% of industry peers

DART rate
F 4.16 per 100 workers

Safer than 22% 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

−3.7

2016→2019

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC injury rate improved

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC's TCR fell 3.7 from 8.4 in 2016 to 4.7 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2016 at 8.4 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.86× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=8.4 · 2017=3.4 · 2018=2.9 · 2019=4.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326199 · Charlotte, NC ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 4.8 · 146% of ind

  • DART 4.2 DART
  • RANK #101/132
  • PHOTO Jagemann Precision P…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 36 inj
  • SIZE ~185 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Jagemann Precision Plastics (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Schaefer Systems - MFGNC averages 4.8 TCR (146% of the Packaging, plastics (e.g., blister, bubble), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC TCR series: 2016=8.4 · 2017=3.4 · 2018=2.9 · 2019=4.7 · BLS 3.3

Where Schaefer Systems - MFGNC falls in its industry

2,838 Packaging, plastics (e.g., bli establishments

Safer than 33% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #101 safest of 132 Packaging, plastics (e.g., bli employers in North Carolina.

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC (185 employees, TCR 4.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 101 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 0100200300400 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Schaefer Systems - MFGNC
Schaefer Systems - MFGNC (185 employees, TCR 4.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 101 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Schaefer Systems - MFGNC has more employees than the Packaging, plastics (e.g., blister, bubb 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
2019 4.7 4.2 9 0 0
2018 2.9 2.9 6 0 0
2017 3.4 1.9 7 0 0
2016 8.4 6.0 14 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326199 · NC · Charlotte

2,838 Packaging, plastics (e.g., blister, bubble), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 2,058 employers in Charlotte, NC · 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 Jagemann Precision Plastics 4.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Mack Molding Company - Statesville NC location 4.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Window Mart, Inc 4.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR JSP - Butler 4.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE STG Solar 185 FTE
STATE-SIZE DFA FLUID - WINSTON-SALEM NC 185 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lexington Plant 185 FTE
STATE-SIZE Plant 3 185 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1101-Carolinas Medical Center (1101) 8,444 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0001-Carolinas Medical Center 8,032 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4795-AA-CLT-CHARLOTTE-CLT-TRML 7,295 FTE
CITY-NEAR Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center 4,973 FTE
NAT-TCR Dallas - North /by the Galleria (HP) 4.8 TCR
NAT-TCR First Care Clinic 4.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Metro/Davidson County 4.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Shopko Hometown #549 (Hardin, MT) 4.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE PetersenDean Roofing and Solar West Sacramento-Roofing 185 FTE
NAT-SIZE The Bellevue Hotel (UC) 185 FTE
NAT-SIZE #712 Linden Commissary 185 FTE
NAT-SIZE #573 Edison Shoprite 185 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: 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.