Aerosol cans, light gauge metal, manufacturing · California

Shield Packaging of California

Chino, CA · ~79 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Shield Packaging of California runs at 74% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Aerosol cans, light gauge metal, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade B.

Shield Packaging of California: 2.4 TCR = 74% of Aerosol cans, light gauge metal, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Shield Packaging of California safety composite

Shield Packaging of California scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 5%), 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)
D 2.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 49% of industry peers

DART rate
F 4.1 per 100 workers

Safer than 5% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Shield Packaging of California: 0.9 → 4.1 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 5.7 TCR · DART/TCR 1.69× in 2023

Shield Packaging of California's TCR rose 3.2 from 0.9 in 2018 to 4.1 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 5.7 TCR. In 2023, DART was 1.69× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332431 · Chino, CA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.4 · 74% of ind

  • DART 4.1 DART
  • RANK #10/21
  • PHOTO Ball Beverage Pkg 17…
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 11 inj
  • SIZE ~79 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Ball Beverage Pkg 172 Rome (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Shield Packaging of California in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Shield Packaging of California averages 2.4 TCR (74% of the Aerosol cans, light gauge metal, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Shield Packaging of California TCR series: 2018=0.9 · 2019=1.1 · 2020=0 · 2021=2.8 · 2022=5.7 · 2023=4.1 · BLS 3.3

Where Shield Packaging of California falls in its industry

217 Aerosol cans, light gauge meta establishments

Safer than 49% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #10 safest of 21 Aerosol cans, light gauge meta employers in California.

Shield Packaging of California (79 employees, TCR 2.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 117 employees and a TCR of 2.4 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 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate Shield Packaging of California
Shield Packaging of California (79 employees, TCR 2.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 117 employees and a TCR of 2.4

Shield Packaging of California has fewer employees than the Aerosol cans, light gauge metal, manufac median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.4. 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
2023 4.1 4.1 1 0 0
2022 5.7 4.8 6 0 0
2021 2.8 2.8 2 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 1.1 1.1 1 0 0
2018 0.9 0.9 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332431 · CA · Chino

217 Aerosol cans, light gauge metal, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 268 employers in Chino, 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 Ball Beverage Pkg 172 Rome 2.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Trivium Packaging USA, Inc. - Roanoke 2.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ball Metalpack - Oakdale, CA 2.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Riverside Lid Plant 2.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Crisalida Berry Farms, LLC 79 FTE
STATE-SIZE L E Cooke Co 79 FTE
STATE-SIZE MOBI'S 79 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sun Pacific Farming | Citrus Farming | Maricopa 79 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4078 2,902 FTE
CITY-NEAR 8103 2,259 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 4078 1,732 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Institution for Men 1,680 FTE
NAT-TCR Luxottica Distribution and Manufacturing 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Ashley Pointe Hospitality 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR ERA Industries, Inc. - Wheeling 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Location 1- Manufacturing 2.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Revolution Brewing 79 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sodexo at Mohawk Valley Cc 79 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bayou Chateau Nursing Center Inc 79 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hamburg IA (Bulk) 79 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.