Alert: Due to routine maintenance on the OSHA website, some pages are temporarily unavailable.
To report an emergency, file a complaint with OSHA or ask a safety and health question, call 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA).

Back to OSHA Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP) Home
OSHA Strategic Partnership Program
Annual Partnership Evaluation Report

These tables are best viewed on tablets, notebooks, or desktop computer screens.

Partnership Name
The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), the Ford Motor Company (Ford), and Automotive Component Holdings, LLC (ACH)
Purpose of Partnership
The partners agree to construct an OSHA Strategic Partnership (OSP) based on mutual respect and trust that leverages the resources of all the parties through the systematic anticipation, identification, evaluation and control of health and safety hazards at UAW/Ford and UAW/ACH locations under federal jurisdiction.
Goal of Partnership
Goal Strategy Measure
Reduce injuries and illnesses year-over-year at each OSP location
  • Anticipate, identify, evaluation and control of health and safety hazards
  • Creation of a pro-active health and safety culture
  • Creation of a cooperative non-adversarial relationship that optimizes the resources of all parties
  • Total Case Incidence Rate (TCIR)
  • Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred Rate (DART)
  • Lost Time Case Rate (LTCR)
Anticipated Outcomes
  • Reduction in injury and illness rates including TCIR, DART and LTCR
  • Proactive health and safety culture
  • Cooperative relationship between OSHA and the partners
Strategic Management Plan Target Areas (check one)
Construction   Amputations in Manufacturing  
General Industry X    
Strategic Management Plan Areas of Emphasis (check all applicable)
Amputations in Construction   Oil and Gas Field Services  
Blast Furnaces and Basic Steel Products   Preserve Fruits and Vegetables  
Blood Lead Levels   Public Warehousing and Storage  
Concrete, Gypsum and Plaster Products   Ship/Boat Building and Repair  
Ergo/Musculoskeletal X Silica-Related Disease  
Landscaping/Horticultural Services      
Date of Evaluation Report
Evaluation Period:
Start Date 01/01/2009 End Date 12/31/2009
Evaluation OSHA Contact Person
Originating Office
Christian Wojnar

Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs (DCSP), Office of Partnerships and Recognition (OPR), Washington, DC
# Active Employers 12 # Active Employees 13,552
Industry Coverage (note range or specific SIC and NAICS for each partner)
Buffalo Stamping Plant, Hamburg, New York (BSP) 3465 336370
Chicago Assembly Plant, Chicago, Illinois (CAP) 3711 336111
Chicago Stamping Plant, Chicago, Illinois (CSP) 3465 336370
Cleveland Casting Plant, Brook Park, Ohio (CCP) 3353 331315
Cleveland Engine Plant #1, Brook Park, Ohio (CEP1) 3714 336312
Cleveland Engine Plant #2, Brook Park, Ohio (CEP2) 3714 336312
Kansas City Assembly Plant, Kansas City, Missouri (KCAP) 3711 336111
Lima Engine Plant, Lima, Ohio (LEP) 3714 336312
Ohio Assembly Plant, Avon Lake, Ohio (OAP) 3711 336111
Sandusky Plastics Plant, Sandusky, Ohio (ACH) (SPP) 3089 326199
Sharonville Transmission Plant, Sharonville, Ohio (STP) 3714 336350
Walton Hills Stamping Plant, Walton Hills, Ohio (WHSP) 3465 336370
Section 2 Activities Performed
Note whether an activity was provided for by the OSP and whether it was performed
Required Performed
a. Training YES YES
b. Consultation Visits    
c. Safety and Health Management Systems Reviewed/Developed YES YES
d. Technical Assistance    
e. VPP-Focused Activities    
f. OSHA Enforcement Inspection   YES
g. Offsite Verifications    
h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Interactions YES YES
i. Participant Self-Inspections YES YES
j. Other Activities    
2a. Training (if performed, provide the following totals)
Training sessions conducted by OSHA staff
Training sessions conducted by non-OSHA staff 27
Employees trained 13,552
Training hours provided to employees 55,122*
Supervisors/managers trained **
Training hours provided to supervisors/managers *
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

Training courses offered in 2009 include:

  • Hazard Communications
  • Powered Material Handling Vehicles: Pedestrian
  • Energy Control Power Lockout
  • Guidelines Responsibilities Safe Practices
  • Confined Spaces: Permit Issuer
  • Confined Spaces: Entrants and Attendants
  • Lifting & Rigging
  • Skilled Trades Job Safety Analysis (JSA)
  • JSA Writer
  • New Employee Orientation
  • Combustion Equipment
  • Troubleshooting
  • Working at Heights
  • Maintenance Vehicles
  • Overhead Gantry Crane
  • Mobile Boom Crane
  • Ergonomics
  • Emergency Preparedness
  • Electrical Safety
  • Personal Protective Equipment
  • Hexavalent Chromium
  • Manage the Change
  • Construction Safety

* The training hours are based on estimates. Training by computer, allowing workers to proceed at their own pace, is becoming a staple at all of the Ford and ACH sites in lieu of training led by a trainer. As a result, tracking of actual hours is not feasible at this time as only session completions are tracked. Ford and ACH offer training on a wide variety of topics and those relevant to the protocols of the OSP are listed above.
**The number of managers/supervisors trained is combined with the number of workers.

2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if performed, provide the following total)
Systems implemented or improved using the 1989 OSHA Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines as a model 12
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Corporate-Wide Improvements: Ford and UAW continued to implement the Safety and Health Assessment Review Process (SHARP) at all of OSP sites.

Addressing areas of improvement identified during previous "OSHA Day" events, Ford installed 1.) Effective machine guarding systems at two identified sites; the systems have been identified by OSHA as best practices and 2.) New equipment addressing workers ergonomic needs.

Summaries of the improvements made at each OSP site as observed during OSHA Day events attendees are included in Appendix A: Individual Site Summaries.
2f. OSHA Enforcement Activity (if performed, provide the following totals for any programmed, unprogrammed, and verification-related inspections)
OSHA enforcement inspections conducted 5
OSHA enforcement inspections in compliance 4
OSHA enforcement inspection with violations cited 1
Average number of citations classified as Serious, Repeat, and Willful 0
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Walton Hills Stamping Plant:
#311504575; Opened February 9, 2009; Closed August 19, 2009
Response to a complaint
Cited standard: 19100303 B01 Electrical Systems Design, General Requirements
One Other than Serious
$1700 Penalty

Sharonville Transmission Plant:
#313110983; Opened April 17, 2009; Closed April 17, 2009
No citations issued

Lima Engine Plant:
#311610174; Opened July 23, 2009; Closed September 15, 2009
No citations issued

Sharonville Transmission Plant:
#313519779; Opened June 26, 2009; Closed July 21, 2009
Programmed Inspection
No citations issued

Sharonville Transmission Plant:
#313519761; Opened June 25, 2009; Closed July 21, 2009
Unprogrammed (Related) Inspection
No citations issued
2h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Verification (if performed, provide the following total)
Onsite non-enforcement verifications performed 10
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

Ten (10) out of 12 sites had OSHA Day events.

A review of the ten OSHA Day event reports showed the improvements noted since the previous verifications. The total next to each item listed below indicates the frequency of the item being mentioned in the OSHA Day event reports.
Improvements observed were:

  • Housekeeping (6)
  • Ergonomics (2)
  • Personal Protection Equipment (4)
  • Injury and Illness Rates (1)
  • Metal Guarding (5)
  • Lockout/Tagout (2)
  • Hearing Loss/Conservation (1)
  • Confined Space (1)

The areas for improvement identified were:

  • Injury and Illness Rates (1)
  • Ergonomics (4)
  • Worker Involvement (1)
  • Slips/Trips/Falls (2)
  • Emergency Preparedness (2)
  • Accident Investigations (2)
  • Hazard Identification (1)
  • Air Sampling (1)
  • Near Miss Reporting (1)

For individual site observations noted during each OSHA Day event, see Appendix A: Individual Site Summaries.

Two sites' "OSHA Day" event reports were not included in this evaluation because.

  1. The Buffalo Stamping Plant was scheduled to hold an "OSHA Day" event to cover 2009 progress in late January 2010. However, the event was placed on hold due to an enforcement inspection which was initiated two days prior to the event's scheduled date.
  2. The "OSHA Day" event at the Kansas City Assembly Plant was conducted however, the event report has not been submitted to OPR; the local Area Office is working with the plant to facilitate the abatement of a potential fall hazard observed during the "OSHA Day" visit.
2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed, provide the following total)
Self-inspections performed 4,044
Hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated 5,234
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

The following inspections are done on a regular basis at the Ford sites:

  • Schirmer Fire Inspections (annually)
  • Safety and Health Assessment Review Process (quarterly)
  • Powered Material Handling Vehicles - Pedestrian (quarterly)
  • Regional Safety Security Manager Visits (quarterly)
  • Safe Behaviors Index (weekly)
  • Leadership Safety Walks - Tours Process (weekly)
  • Guidelines Responsibility and Safe Practices (GRASP) - Daily Start Up (daily)
  • UAW-Ford Joint Health and Safety Reviews (weekly)
  • Fire Protection Systems (weekly)
Section 3 Illness and Injury Information

Partnership Totals

Year Hours Total Cases TCIR DART Cases DART LTCR Cases LTCR
2007 36,654,174 3,140 17.1 932 5.1 192 1.0
2008 29,035,320 1,922 13.2 406 2.8 113 0.8
2009 24,131,772 1,681 13.9 403 3.3 115 1.0
Total 89,821,266 6,743 1,741 420
Three-year Rate (2007-2009) 15.0 3.9 0.9

*For all comparisons involving Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) industry averages, the 2008 reported average rates were used.

The information provided below is a summary of each site's performance and overall OSP averages. For additional site information including individual incidence rates and the 2008 BLS Industry Averages, see Appendix A: Individual Site Summaries.

2009 Results
In 2009, Walton Hills Stamping Plant in Walton Hills, Ohio achieved a zero DART rate.

While at least half of the participating sites improved their injury and illness rates compared with their 2008 rates, three overall OSP measures saw overall increases in 2009:

  • In 2009, the OSP participating sites increased their overall TCIR by 5 percent, from 13.2 in 2008 to 13.9
    • The sites' TCIR rates, on the average, were 73 percent above the industry averages
    • 50 percent of the sites reduced their TCIR
    • Two sites had TCIR below their industry's averages
  • In 2009, the OSP participating sites increased their overall DART rate by 18 percent, from 2.8 in 2008 to 3.3
    • The sites' DART rates, on the average, were 31 percent below the industry averages
    • 58 percent (7 out of 12) of the sites reduced their DART rate
    • 75 percent of the sites had DART rates below their industry's averages
  • In 2009, the OSP participating sites increased their overall LTCR by 25 percent, from 0.8 in 2008 to 1.0
    • 58 percent of the sites reduced their LTCR

Three-Year Results
During the 3-year period 2007-2009, the OSP participating sites achieved a 19 percent reduction in the overall TCIR, a 35 percent reduction in the overall DART rate, and maintained the overall LTCR at 1.0.

  • 2007-2009 TCIR: For the 3-year period, the OSP sites achieved an overall TCIR of 15.0
    • The sites' three-year TCIR rates, on the average, were 94 percent above the industry averages
    • 2 sites had their three-year TCIR below their industry's averages
  • 2007-2009 DART: For the 3-year period, the OSP achieved an overall DART rate of 6.3
    • The sites' three-year DART rates, on the average, were 5 percent above the industry averages
    • 5 sites' 3-year average DART rates were below their respective industry's average
  • 2007-2009 LTCR: For the 3-year period, the OSP achieved an overall LTCR of 0.9

The three-year incidence rates as measured in the 2007-2009 period were lower compared to the previous 2006-2008 results.

  • TCIR: 16.7 (2006-2008) vs. 15.0 (2007-2009) = 10% improvement
  • DART: 6.3 (2006-2008) vs. 3.9 (2007-2009) = 38% improvement
  • LTCR: 1.3 (2006-2008) vs. 0.9 (2007-2009) = 31% improvement

Introduction to Charts
The following charts show results for each participating OSP site in 2009. The sites' names are abbreviated to provide an uncluttered view of the data; these abbreviations correspond to those following each site's name on page 1 of this Annual Evaluation Report.

Figures 1 (TCIR),2 (DART), and 3 (LTCR) illustrate the percentage change between 2008 and 2009 for the particular measure. For example, a bar at -20% means that the site reduced its rate by 20% over the course of the year.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 3

Figures 4 (TCIR) and 5 (DART) show how each site's 1-year and 3-year TCIR and DART rates compare to the 2008 industry average rates published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For example, a bar at 250% means that the site's rate is 250% higher than its respective industry average.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 6 looks at the incidence rates, as reported by each year's annual evaluation, over the lifetime of the OSP (from 2001 to 2009). Since the 1st year of OSP data collection in 2001, the TCIR, DART and LTCR rates have decreased as follows:

  • TCIR by 76 percent (57.7 in 2000 to 13.9 in 2009)
  • DART by 88 percent (27.5 in 2000 to 3.3 in 2009)
  • LTCR by 80 percent (4.9 in 2000 to 1.0 in 2009)
Figure 6

Figure 6

Section 4 Partnership Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations
Changes and Challenges (check all applicable)
Changes Challenges
Management Structure
Data Collection X X
Employee Involvement    
OSHA Enforcement Inspection    
Partnership Outreach    
Other (Specify)    
Data collection continues to present a challenge. As there are 12 sites from which data must be collected, the OSP needs to develop a consistent and systematic approach to collect data. It will be recommended that a data collection template be developed should the Agency develop a new OSP agreement. The template would allow for consistency in the data collection process among the individual sites. Also, all parties, including the individual sites, need to be aware of their data collection responsibilities.
Plans to Improve (check all applicable)
Improvements N/A
Meet more often
Improve data collection X  
Conduct more training    
Change goals    
See Changes and Challenges for a discussion on data collection issues.
Partnership Benefits (check all applicable)
Increased safety and health awareness X
Improved relationship with OSHA X
Improved relationship with employers  
Improved relationship with employees or unions X
Increased number of participants  
Other (specify)  
The OSP participants have experienced significant reductions in the overall injury and illness rates since the inception of the OSP in 2000. UAW, Ford and ACH continue to enhance their safety and health management efforts with the usage of its SHARP assessment processes. Also, there have been increased emphases placed on ergonomics and machine guarding. Ford has allocated many resources to address these two issues creating a safer environment for the workers.

OSHA will work with UAW, Ford, and ACH to create a new OSP and continue the successful collaborative work between all stakeholders.
Status Recommendations (check one)
Partnership Completed X
Continue with the following provisions:  
Terminate (provide explanation)  
Back to Top

Thank You for Visiting Our Website

You are exiting the Department of Labor's Web server.

The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.