Building Cleaning/Maintenance · Indiana

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining

Notre Dame, IN · ~96 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.6
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining runs at 57% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Building Cleaning/Maintenance workplace, earning a grade B.

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining: 2.6 TCR = 57% of Building Cleaning/Maintenance BLS 4.5 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining safety composite

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 78% 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

63/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.58 per 100 workers

Safer than 59% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% 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

−2.6

2016→2022

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining injury rate improved

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining's TCR fell 2.6 from 2.6 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2017 at 10.3 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.6 · 2017=10.3 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=0.0 · 2022=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 561720 · Notre Dame, IN AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.6 · 57% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #48/99
  • PHOTO ES RIVER PARK HSP
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 5 inj
  • SIZE ~96 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: ES RIVER PARK HSP (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining averages 2.6 TCR (57% of the Building Cleaning/Maintenance BLS benchmark).

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

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining TCR series: 2016=2.6 · 2017=10.3 · 2018=0 · 2019=0 · 2022=0 · BLS 4.5

Where Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining falls in its industry

4,064 Building Cleaning/Maintenance establishments

Safer than 59% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Indiana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #48 safest of 99 Building Cleaning/Maintenance employers in Indiana.

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining (96 employees, TCR 2.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 3.2 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 02004006008001,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining
Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining (96 employees, TCR 2.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 3.2

Sodexo at Saint Mary'S College-Dining has more employees than the Building Cleaning/Maintenance median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.2. 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
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 10.3 0.0 4 0 0
2016 2.6 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

561720 · IN · Notre Dame

4,064 Building Cleaning/Maintenance employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,750 rated employers in Indiana with headcount on file · 8 employers in Notre Dame, IN · 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 ES RIVER PARK HSP 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Universal Building Services & Supply Co 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Green Living Planet LLC 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Eglin AFB Custodial 2.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Indiana Municipal Power Agency 96 FTE
STATE-SIZE National Water Services 96 FTE
STATE-SIZE 104273 - Headwaters Wind Farm 200MW 96 FTE
STATE-SIZE Cobalt Civil, LLC 96 FTE
CITY-NEAR Holy Cross Village at Notre Dame 139 FTE
CITY-NEAR IRISH Group Sales 100 FTE
CITY-NEAR IRISH General Concessions 41 FTE
CITY-NEAR SODEXO AT DEPARTMENT OF HOLY CROSS HOUSE 27 FTE
NAT-TCR MS Cafe Advanta 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 5174 Edwardsville Assembly 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 4342 Houston Sheet Plant 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 3724 Cottonton Sawmill 2.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Sodexo at Langston University 96 FTE
NAT-SIZE el super #23 bristol 96 FTE
NAT-SIZE Legrand AV Shakopee 96 FTE
NAT-SIZE El Super #7 Huntington Park 96 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: 2022, 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.