Capping, sealing, and lidding packaging machinery manufacturing · Wisconsin

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant

Pittsville, WI · ~46 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
11.0
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant runs at 332% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Capping, sealing, and lidding packaging machinery manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant: 11.0 TCR = 332% of Capping, sealing, and lidding packaging machinery manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant safety composite

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 77% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 2%), 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

41/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.96 per 100 workers

Safer than 2% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 77% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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

−17.2

2017→2022

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant injury rate improved

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant's TCR fell 17.2 from 17.2 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2020 at 17.5 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=17.2 · 2018=13.7 · 2019=14.9 · 2020=17.5 · 2021=2.4 · 2022=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 333993 · Pittsville, WI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 11.0 · 332% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #28/28
  • PHOTO Eastey Enterprises
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 25 inj
  • SIZE ~46 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Eastey Enterprises (0.9 TCR gap)

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

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant averages 11.0 TCR (332% of the Capping, sealing, and lidding packaging machinery manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant TCR series: 2017=17.2 · 2018=13.7 · 2019=14.9 · 2020=17.5 · 2021=2.4 · 2022=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant falls in its industry

269 Capping, sealing, and lidding establishments

Safer than 2% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Wisconsin alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #28 safest of 28 Capping, sealing, and lidding employers in Wisconsin.

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant (46 employees, TCR 11.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant
Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant (46 employees, TCR 11.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 2.4

Sweet and Dried Cranberry Plant has fewer employees than the Capping, sealing, and lidding packaging 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
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 2.4 0.0 1 0 0
2020 17.5 0.0 6 0 0
2019 14.9 6.4 7 0 0
2018 13.7 6.9 6 0 0
2017 17.2 14.7 5 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

333993 · WI · Pittsville

269 Capping, sealing, and lidding packaging machinery manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,834 rated employers in Wisconsin with headcount on file · 7 employers in Pittsville, WI · 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 Eastey Enterprises 11.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ohlson Packaging LLC 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Choice Bagging Equipment, Ltd. 9.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR SUBURBAN MACHINE CORPORATION 13.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Farmland Management Services - Wisconsin 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE Baraboo Operations 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE Schuh General Construction 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE Holtz Builders, Inc. 46 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hay Creek Pallet Inc 39 FTE
CITY-NEAR Juice Plant 28 FTE
CITY-NEAR Gardner Trucking 27 FTE
CITY-NEAR MARSHES 25 FTE
NAT-TCR MCRT El Paso Tenant LLC 11.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Broulim's Afton 11.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Aperion Care Peoria Heights 11.0 TCR
NAT-TCR 6962-ABS-0029-0028-04563 11.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Continental Manufacturing Company 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE Belvedere Commons 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bergey's Truck Centers Trenton 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE Priority Collision Center 46 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, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.