Doors, unframed glass, made from purchased glass · Oregon

Vitro Architectural Glass

Salem, OR · ~46 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Vitro Architectural Glass runs at 193% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Doors, unframed glass, made from purchased glass workplace, earning a grade D.

Vitro Architectural Glass: 6.4 TCR = 193% of Doors, unframed glass, made from purchased glass BLS 3.3 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Vitro Architectural Glass safety composite

Vitro Architectural Glass scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (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).

D

36/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 6.38 per 100 workers

Safer than 22% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.17 per 100 workers

Safer than 41% 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

−4.4

2016→2023

Vitro Architectural Glass injury rate improved

Vitro Architectural Glass's TCR fell 4.4 from 6.5 in 2016 to 2.2 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2020 at 11.7 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.34× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.5 · 2017=7.0 · 2018=8.3 · 2019=9.1 · 2020=11.7 · 2021=6.2 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=2.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 327215 · Salem, OR ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 6.4 · 193% of ind

  • DART 2.2 DART
  • RANK #6/6
  • PHOTO Chattanooga Labeling…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 21 inj
  • SIZE ~46 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Chattanooga Labeling Systems - Galeton Division (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Vitro Architectural Glass in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Vitro Architectural Glass averages 6.4 TCR (193% of the Doors, unframed glass, made from purchased glass BLS benchmark).

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

Vitro Architectural Glass TCR series: 2016=6.5 · 2017=7 · 2018=8.3 · 2019=9.1 · 2020=11.7 · 2021=6.2 · 2022=0 · 2023=2.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Vitro Architectural Glass falls in its industry

441 Doors, unframed glass, made fr establishments

Safer than 22% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Oregon alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 6 Doors, unframed glass, made fr employers in Oregon.

Vitro Architectural Glass (46 employees, TCR 6.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 94 employees and a TCR of 3.3 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 0100200300400500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Vitro Architectural Glass
Vitro Architectural Glass (46 employees, TCR 6.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 94 employees and a TCR of 3.3

Vitro Architectural Glass has fewer employees than the Doors, unframed glass, made from purchas median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.3. 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
2023 2.2 2.2 1 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 6.2 4.1 1 2 0
2020 11.7 0.0 2 3 0
2019 9.1 1.8 5 0 0
2018 8.3 5.0 5 0 0
2017 7.0 5.3 4 0 0
2016 6.5 2.2 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

327215 · OR · Salem

441 Doors, unframed glass, made from purchased glass employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 8,031 rated employers in Oregon with headcount on file · 471 employers in Salem, OR · 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 Chattanooga Labeling Systems - Galeton Division 6.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Engineered Glass Products Halsted Street Plant 6.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR custom glass solutions, Fostoria 6.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR LCI - 228G 6.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Northwest Vineyard Service, Inc. 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tres Amigos Orchard, LLC 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE Cherry Mountain Orchards, Inc. 46 FTE
STATE-SIZE Oregon 46 FTE
CITY-NEAR Oregon State Hospital-Salem Campus 2,036 FTE
CITY-NEAR North America Fulfillment Centers (FCs) : PDX7 1,559 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chemeketa Community College 1,551 FTE
CITY-NEAR Human Service Building ODHS 1,402 FTE
NAT-TCR 55355 Visalia 6.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Gray Warehouse 6.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Wm Orr & Sons Inc 6.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Les Schwab Tire Center-Ellensburg 6.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Acterra Group Inc 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE Aerospace : Phoenix 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE GAMA Contracting Services, Inc. 46 FTE
NAT-SIZE Specialty Plastics, Inc. 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 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.