Controllers for process variables (e.g., electric, electronic, mechanical, pneumatic operation) manufacturing · Minnesota

SJE-Rhombus

New Hope, MN · ~25 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

SJE-Rhombus runs at 43% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Controllers for process variables (e.g., electric, electronic, mechanical, pneumatic operation) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade A.

SJE-Rhombus: 1.4 TCR = 43% of Controllers for process variables (e.g., electric, electronic, mechanical, pneumatic operation) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

SJE-Rhombus safety composite

SJE-Rhombus scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 75% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 46%), 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

57/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 1.42 per 100 workers

Safer than 46% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 75% 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

−3.6

2017→2024

SJE-Rhombus injury rate improved

SJE-Rhombus's TCR fell 3.6 from 3.6 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 4.0 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=3.6 · 2018=3.7 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=4.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 334513 · New Hope, MN AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 1.4 · 43% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #10/17
  • PHOTO 2967-CO64
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 2 inj
  • SIZE ~25 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 2967-CO64 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

SJE-Rhombus in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows SJE-Rhombus averages 1.4 TCR (43% of the Controllers for process variables (e.g., electric, electronic, mechanical, pneumatic operation) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

SJE-Rhombus TCR series: 2017=3.6 · 2018=3.7 · 2019=0 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=4 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where SJE-Rhombus falls in its industry

322 Controllers for process variab establishments

Safer than 46% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #10 safest of 17 Controllers for process variab employers in Minnesota.

SJE-Rhombus (25 employees, TCR 1.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 96 employees and a TCR of 1.3 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 0200400600 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate SJE-Rhombus
SJE-Rhombus (25 employees, TCR 1.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 96 employees and a TCR of 1.3

SJE-Rhombus has fewer employees than the Controllers for process variables (e.g., median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.3. 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
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 4.0 4.0 1 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 3.7 3.7 1 0 0
2017 3.6 0.0 0 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

334513 · MN · New Hope

322 Controllers for process variables (e.g., electric, electronic, mechanical, pneumatic operation) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 95 employers in New Hope, MN · 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 2967-CO64 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Quality Thermistor, Inc. 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR SERV-I-QUIP INC. 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Warminster - 125 East County Line Road 1.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE GDM Seeds, Inc - Hutchinson, MN 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Park Rapids Trucking 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Country Pork LLP 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Select Genetics MN IPH 03-0110-10, 50, 51, 52, 970 25 FTE
CITY-NEAR Saint Therese of New Hope 391 FTE
CITY-NEAR Horwitz, Inc 340 FTE
CITY-NEAR New Hope - Main Store 276 FTE
CITY-NEAR North Education Center 237 FTE
NAT-TCR Berkots 759 1.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Electric Operations Building (Charleston) 1.4 TCR
NAT-TCR St. Charles - Kirk Road 1.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Columbia Memorial Rehab 1.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Bliss Machine, Ltd 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hampton Inn Chicago Midway 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Metals USA-Philadelphia Flat Rolled 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Worth Steel & Machinery 25 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, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.