Back to OSHA Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP) Home
A 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




Reduce injuries and illnesses year-over-year at each OSP location

  • Anticipate, identify and control hazards
  • Create a proactive safety and health culture
  • Create a cooperative non-adversarial relationship, optimizing the parties’ resources
  • 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 rates
  • Proactive safety and health culture
  • Cooperative relationship between OSHA and the partners

Strategic Management Plan Target Areas (check one)



Amputations in Manufacturing


General Industry




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




Silica-Related Disease


Landscaping/Horticultural Services




Section 1 General Partnership Information
Date of Evaluation Report


Evaluation Period:

Start Date


End Date


Evaluation OSHA Contact Person

Christian Wojnar

Originating Office

Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs (DCSP), Office of Partnerships and Recognition (OPR), Washington, DC

Partnership Coverage

# Active Employers


# Active Workers


Industry Coverage (note range or specific SIC and NAICS for each partner)




Buffalo Stamping Plant, Hamburg, New York (BSP)



Chicago Assembly Plant, Chicago, Illinois (CAP)



Chicago Stamping Plant, Chicago, Illinois (CSP)



Cleveland Casting Plant, Brook Park, Ohio (CCP)



Cleveland Engine Plant #1, Brook Park, Ohio (CEP1)



Cleveland Engine Plant #2, Brook Park, Ohio (CEP2)



Kansas City Assembly Plant, Kansas City, Missouri (KCAP)



Lima Engine Plant, Lima, Ohio (LEP)



Ohio Assembly Plant, Avon Lake, Ohio (OAP)



Sandusky Plastics Plant, Sandusky, Ohio (ACH) (SPP)



Sharonville Transmission Plant, Sharonville, Ohio (STP)



Walton Hills Stamping Plant, Walton Hills, Ohio (WHSP)



Section 2 Activities Performed
Note whether an activity was provided for by the OSP and whether it was performed




a. Training



b. Consultation Visits



c. Safety and Health Management Systems Reviewed/Developed



d. Technical Assistance



e. VPP-Focused Activities



f. OSHA Enforcement Inspection



g. Offsite Verifications



h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Interactions



i. Participant Self-Inspections



j. Other Activities



2a. Training (if performed, provide the following totals)

Training sessions conducted by OSHA staff


Training sessions conducted by non-OSHA staff


Employees trained


Training hours provided to employees


Supervisors/managers trained


Training hours provided to supervisors/managers


Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

The training modules listed below are available to all employees who work in participating plants and in those areas affected by the training topics. For example, there would be no need for all plant employees to take training about hexavalent chromium as not all plant employees are potentially exposed to hexavalent chromium. 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. Ford and ACH offer training on a wide variety of topics and those relevant to the protocols of the OSP, and those offered in 2010 are listed below:

  • 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
  • Lifting & Rigging for Complex Lifts
  • Skilled Trades Job Safety Analysis
  • New Employee Orientation
  • Combustion Equipment
  • Energy Control and Power Lockout (ECPL) 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
  • Safety Operating System (SOS); a SHMS that will replace its current Safety and Health Assessment Review Process (SHARP) in 2011
  • Construction Safety

*In 2010, Ford did not track the number of sessions and hours of training its employees and supervisors received due to the nature of the training provided as it allows each employee to complete at his own pace. Also, Ford did not track the number of employees and supervisors that received the training, but all of its employees at all of its sites performed at least one training session.

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


Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

Corporate-Wide Improvements:
In 2010, Ford made the following improvements:

  • Launched a comprehensive health and safety management system called Safety Operating System (SOS). SOS expanded and built upon Ford’s previous SHMS, known as SHARP, and its auditing process, by enhancing roles and responsibilities for key positions in their plants, providing clarity on safety policies and standards, and improved safety training.  This effort adds focus on leadership engagement and improves its processes to assess competency and adherence to safety policies.
  • Developed a Joint Safety Charter to enhance senior joint leadership support of health and safety policies with the UAW and CAW. This effort put into place bimonthly Manufacturing Safety Council meetings with company and union leadership. The purpose of these meetings is to review safety trends, processes, and upcoming safety initiatives to ensure support by all stakeholders and streamline the dissemination of safety information and processes to all of its plants.  
  • Made signs and safety banners to promote safety awareness at all of its North America locations. Examples of the messages depicted include ‘Think Safety, __ Days since Lost Time Injury’ and ‘Stay Safe: Remember Focus at all Times, Others Count on You, Rushing Increases your Odds, Don’t Take Chances.”
  • Updated and implemented its Energy Control and Power Lockout (ECPL) and Confined Space Entry training programs and all authorized employees were required to complete them.  The ECPL program is a web-based training course with more detailed information on lockouts and placarding.  The Confined Space Entry program now has a non-permit confined space declassification process instead of defining all spaces as ‘Permit Required.”  The plants track the completion of training by authorized employees to ensure that they complete training.
  • Developed a Comprehensive Walking Working Surface Global Standard which now requires all of its plants to take action to minimize trip, slip or fall hazards through housekeeping, elevation changes, and snow and ice removal. An informative poster was developed to provide examples of compliant walking working surfaces.
  • Updated its electrical safety policies to align with the latest version of the NFPA 70E standard (2009), and conducted training for all electrical Senior Authorized Persons on updated tools for compliance.  Plants track the completion of the training by authorized employees to ensure that they complete training on an annual basis.
  • Formed a joint serious injury task force with senior UAW leadership to address causes of serious injuries (injuries involving either lost time or necessitating medical treatment) and fatalities. Ford’s Serious Injury Tracking tool and trend analysis were used by the task force to identify causes.

2f. OSHA Enforcement Activity (if performed, provide the following totals for any programmed, unprogrammed, and verification-related inspections)

OSHA enforcement inspections conducted


OSHA enforcement inspections in compliance


OSHA enforcement inspection with violations cited


Average number of citations classified as Serious, Repeat, and Willful


Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

Buffalo Stamping Plant
#314102070: Opened on January 27, 2010
Partial Inspection; Response to complaint
Cited Standard: 1910.0179(l)(3) (Overhead & Gantry Cranes)
1 Willful issued on June 18, 2010 ($70,000); Contested on July 9, 2010; still open as of May 18, 2011

Kansas City Assembly Plant
#314464819; Opened on June 2, 2010 and closed on June 3, 2010
Partial Inspection; Planned
Cited Standards: 1910.0255(b)(5) (Resistance Welding) and 1910.0023(c)(1) (Guarding Floor & Wall Openings & Holes)
1 Other ($7000); Paid on August 13, 2010 and abated on September 13, 2010

Kansas City Assembly Plant
#314467127; Opened and closed on July 27, 2010
Partial Inspection; Response to a complaint
No citations issued

Ohio Assembly Plant
#313785008: Opened on September 21, 2010 and closed on February 1, 2011
Partial Inspection; Referral
No citations issued

Kansas City Assembly Plant
#314469818: Opened on November 3, 2010 and closed on December 16, 2010
Partial Inspection; Response to a complaint
Cited Standard: 1910.0141(c)(1) (Sanitation)
1 Serious; Informal settlement; $3060

2h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Verification (if performed, provide the following total)

Onsite non-enforcement verifications performed


Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)

Due to the expiration of the OSP Agreement on November 9, 2009, the Area Offices did not conduct onsite non-enforcement verifications (OSHA Day events) during the evaluation period and the renewal discussions were ongoing during 2010. 

2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed, provide the following total)

Self-inspections performed


Hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated


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 OSP 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)

*The number of self-inspections performed is an estimate based on the frequency of each inspection times the number of facilities in the OSP. Also, Ford did not track the number of hazards corrected and/or abated.

Section 3 Illness and Injury Information


OSP Totals








Total Cases


DART Cases


LTCR Cases


































Three-year Rate (2008-2010)







*For all comparisons with the 2010 injury and illness rates involving Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) industry averages, the 2009 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 2009 BLS Industry Averages, see Appendix A: Individual Site Summaries.

2010 Results

  • In 2010, the OSP participating sites decreased their TCIR by 9 percent, from 13.9 in 2009 to 12.6
    • The sites’ TCIR rates, on the average, were 77 percent above their respective industry averages
      • 2009: 73 percent below
    • 50 percent of the sites reduced their TCIR
    • One site had its TCIR below its industry’s average
  • In 2010, the OSP participating sites decreased their DART rate by 15 percent, from 3.3 in 2009 to 2.8
    • The sites’ DART rates, on the average, were 20 percent below their respective industry averages
      • 2009: 31 percent below
    • 58 percent (7 out of 12) of the sites reduced their DART rate
    • 75 percent of the sites had DART rates below their respective industry’s averages
  • In 2010, the OSP participating sites decreased their LTCR by 10 percent, from 1.0 in 2009 to 0.9
    • 42 percent of the sites reduced their LTCR

Three-Year Results
During the 3-year period 2008-2010, the OSP participating sites achieved a 5 percent reduction in the TCIR, maintained their DART rate at 2.8, and experienced an increase of 13 percent with their LTCR.

  • 2008-2010 TCIR: For the 3-year period, the OSP participating sites achieved a TCIR of 13.2
    • The sites’ three-year TCIR rates, on the average, were 80 percent above the industry averages
      • 2007-2009: 94 percent above
    • 1 site had its three-year TCIR below its industry’s averages
  • 2008-2010 DART: For the 3-year period, the OSP participating sites achieved a DART rate of 3.0
    • The sites’ three-year DART rates, on the average, were 6 percent below the industry averages
      • 2007-2009: 5 percent above
    • 8 sites’ 3-year average DART rates were below their respective industry’s average
      • 2009’s evaluation had 5 sites with 3-year DART rates (2007-2009) below their respective industry’s average
  • 2008-2010 LTCR: For the 3-year period, the OSP participating achieved a LTCR of 0.9
    • 2007-2009 LTCR: 0.9

The three-year incidence rates as measured in the 2008-2010 period were lower compared to the previous 2007-2009 results.

  • TCIR: 15.0 (2007-2009) vs. 8.4 (2008-2010) = 44% improvement
  • DART: 3.9 (2007-2009) vs. 2.7 (2008-2010) = 33% improvement
  • LTCR: 0.9 (2007-2009) vs. 0.6 (2008-2010) = 33% improvement

Graph 1 looks at the OSP participating sites incidence rates, as reported by each year’s annual evaluation, over the lifetime of the OSP, from 2001 to 2010. Since the first year of OSP data collection in 2001, the TCIR, DART and LTCR rates for the OSP participating sites have decreased as follows: 

  • TCIR by 78 percent (57.7 in 2001 to 12.6 in 2010)
  • DART by 90 percent (27.5 in 2001 to 2.8 in 2010)
  • LTCR by 82 percent (4.9 in 2001 to 0.9 in 2010)
UAW/Ford/ACH National OSHA Strategic Partnership Incidence Rates (2001-2010)

Graph 1

Introduction to Graphs
The following graphs show results for each OSP participating site in 2010. The sites’ names are abbreviated to correspond to those following each site’s name on page 1 of this Annual Evaluation Report.

Graphs 2 (TCIR), 3 (DART), and 4 (LTCR) illustrate the percentage change between 2009 and 2010 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.

Percentage Changes in the TCIR at the 12 OSP Participating Sites: 2009-2010

Graph 2

Percentage Changes in the DART at the 12 OSP Participating Sites: 2009-2010

Graph 3

Percentage Changes in the LTCR at the 12 OSP Participating Sites: 2009-2010

Graph 4

Graphs 5 (TCIR) and 6 (DART) demonstrate each site’s 1-year and 3-year TCIR and DART rates compare to their respective 2009 industry average rates published by the BLS. For example, a bar at 250% means that the site’s rate is 250% higher than its respective industry average.

1 Year (2010) 3 Year (2001-2010) TCIR Performances of the 12 OSP Participating Sites vs. 2009 BLS Industry Averages

Graph 5

1 Year (2010) 3 Year (2001-2010) DART Performances of the 12 OSP Participating Sites vs. 2009 BLS Industry Averages

Graph 6

Section 4 Partnership Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations
Changes and Challenges (check all applicable)




Management Structure






Data Collection



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 is recommended that a data collection template be developed should the Agency sign 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, which for the purpose of this annual evaluation would include training information (number of sessions, number of employees attending, and number of hours), and self-inspections/ hazards identified and abated totals.

In late 2010, John Lawson replaced John Bokuniewicz as Ford’s OSP lead.

Enforcement inspections were a challenge in 2010 as three out of five inspections conducted resulted in at least one citation. One case was still open at the time this report was prepared. Four of the five inspections were either responses to complaints or referrals. 

Plans to Improve (check all applicable)




Meet more often



Improve data collection



Conduct more training



Change goals




See Changes and Challenges for a discussion on the data collection issue and recommendations to improve.

Partnership Benefits (check all applicable)

Increased safety and health awareness


Improved relationship with OSHA


Improved relationship with employers


Improved relationship with employees or unions


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 and will continue to do so using the new system, SOS which will replace SHARP. There have been increased emphases placed on serious injury prevention, ergonomics and machine guarding. Ford has allocated many resources to address these issues, thereby creating a safer environment for its workers.

Status Recommendations (check one)

Partnership Completed




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.