Powered by GoogleTranslate
Back to OSHA Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP) Home
OSHA Strategic Partnership Program (OSPP)
Annual Partnership Evaluation Report
Calendar Year 2012
January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012

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

Partnership ID#

97

OSHA Strategic Partnership (OSP) Name

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), the Ford Motor Company (Ford), Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA)

Purpose of OSP
The partners agree to construct an OSHA Strategic Partnership (OSP) based on mutual respect and trust, leveraging the resources of all the parties through the systematic anticipation, identification, evaluation and control of health and safety hazards at UAW/Ford, and MIOSHA locations.
Goals of Partnership

Goal

Strategy

Measure

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

  1. Anticipate, identify and control hazards
  2. Create a proactive safety and health culture
  3. Create a cooperative non-adversarial relationship, optimizing the parties' resources

  1. Total Case Incidence Rate (TCIR)
  2. Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred Rate (DART),
  3. 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

*The Lost Time Case Rate (LTCR) is maintained and reported by the partners. The LTCR is not a rate traditionally used in OSPs as there is no Bureau of Labor Statistics rate available for comparison.

Strategic Management Plan Target Areas (check one)

 

Construction

X

Manufacturing Amputations

X

Non-Construction

 

 

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

X

Ergo/Musculoskeletal

 

Silica-Related Disease

 

Landscaping/Horticultural Services

 

 

Section 1 General Partnership Information
Date of Evaluation ReportSeptember 2, 2015
Evaluation Period

Start Date

January 1, 2012

End Date

December 31, 2012

Evaluation Contact PersonJacqueline R. Annis
Originating OfficeOSHA National Office - Washington DC
Partnership Coverage

Active Employers

24

# Active Employees

36,032

NAICS

Woodhaven Forge Plant

MIOSHA

 

97

332111

Chicago Assembly

OSHA

 

4166

336111

Dearborn Diversified Manufacturing Plant/Dearborn Stamping Plant (DDMP/DSP)

MIOSHA

 

931

336111

Dearborn Truck Plant (DTP)

MIOSHA

 

3671

336111

Kansas City Assembly

OSHA

 

4311

336111

Michigan Assembly

MIOSHA

 

5300

336111

Ohio Assembly

OSHA

 

2031

336111

 

 

 

 

 

Cleveland Engine #1

OSHA

 

1161

336312

Cleveland Engine #2

OSHA

 

1200

336312

Dearborn Engine

MIOSHA

 

700

336312

Lima Engine

OSHA

 

1018

336312

Romeo Engine Plant

MIOSHA

 

798

336312

 

 

 

 

 

Livonia Transmission

MIOSHA

 

1007

336350

Sharonville Transmission Plant

OSHA

 

1900

336350

Sterling Axle

MIOSHA

 

1874

336350

Van Dyke Transmission

MIOSHA

 

1291

336350

 

 

 

 

 

Buffalo Stamping

OSHA

 

374

336370

Chicago Stamping

OSHA

 

1050

336370

Dearborn Tool & Die

MIOSHA

 

300

336370

Walton Hills Stamping

OSHA

 

374

336370

Woodhaven Stamping

MIOSHA

 

1148

336370

Brownstone Parts Redistribution Center

MIOSHA

 

448

423120

National Parts Distribution Center (NPDC)

MIOSHA

 

115

423120

Rawsonville Parts

MIOSHA

 

767

423120

Note whether an activity was required by the OSP and whether it was performed

 

Required

Performed

 

a. Training

No

Yes

Hours are not tracked on a corporate level at this time

b. Consultation Visits

Yes

Yes

MI-Consultation participates in OSHA Day visits for Michigan sites

c. Safety and Health Management Systems Reviewed/Developed

Yes

Yes

This is now the Safe Operating System (SOS)

d. Technical Assistance

Yes

No

Technical assistance has been provided During OSHA Day visits

e. VPP-Focused Activities

No

No

 

f. OSHA Enforcement Inspections (OSHA will provide)

No

Yes

See Section 2f

g. Offsite Verifications

No

No

 

h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Interactions

Yes

Yes

OSHA Day Visits : Appendix B

i. Participant Self-Inspections

No

No

Not tracked by OSP

j. Other Activities

No

No

 

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

Training sessions conducted by OSHA staff

0

Training sessions conducted by non-OSHA staff

0

Employees trained

0

Training hours provided to employees

0

Supervisors/managers trained

0

Training hours provided to supervisors/managers

0

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

Currently Ford does not have the ability to track training progress corporate wide. They are working to address this issue and plan to have a system in place in 2013.
 
 

2b. Consultation Visits (if performed, provide the following total)

Consultation visits to partner sites

6

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

The MIOSHA Day visits in Michigan are conducted by a team of MIOSHA representatives headed by a member of the Consultative Services Staff. These are recorded as MIOSHA Day Visits.
 
 

2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if performed, provide the following total)

Number of systems implemented or improved using the OSHA's 1989 Guidelines for Safety and Health Management Programs as a model

N/A

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

Ford's Safety Operating System (SOS) is used for development, implementation and maintenance of Ford's injury and illnesses prevention system. All plants have a system in place so no additional systems were developed. All of the systems are being maintained and tracked by the SOS.
 
 

2d. Technical Assistance (if performed, note type and by whom)
 

Provided by OSHA Staff

Provided by Partners

Provided by Other Party

Conference/Seminar Participation 

1-MIOSHA

 
Interpretation/Explanation of Standards or OSHA Policy   
Abatement Assistance   
Speeches 

1-MIOSHA

 
Other (please specify)   
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity is required but not performed)
Ford UAW Health and Safety Conference Black Lake, MI. October 2-4, 2012. Presentation at meeting explaining the history of and the purpose of the MIOSHA Ford Partnership agreement. Also discussed findings of the MIOSHA days at the plants. This was a value added and would like to continue this in the upcoming years.
 
 
2e. VPP-Focused Activities (if performed, provide the following totals)

Partners actively seeking VPP participation in 2011

0

Applications submitted in 2012

0

VPP participants approved in 2012

0

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

None reported for 2012
 
 
 

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

OSHA enforcement inspections conducted

3

OSHA enforcement inspections in compliance

1

OSHA enforcement inspections with violations cited

2

Number of citations classified as Serious, Repeat, and Willful

0

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

 
 
 
 
2g. Offsite Verification (if performed provide the following total)

Offsite verifications performed

0

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

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

Onsite non-enforcement verifications performed

9

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

OSHA Day visit reports were provided and are summarized in Appendix B.

Results the OSHA Day Verifications revealed that multiple plants have implemented Best Practices or program elements that are notable. A recommendation would be for the plants to share some of their successes with other facilities that may benefit from this information.

For Example:

  1. Out of the nine verifications conducted, four of the facilities have either implemented pedestrian safety programs, or have made improvements to their existing pedestrian safety programs that are rendering positive results.
  2. Three of the nine facilities are using notable heat stress prevention practices.
  3. Two of the plants have implemented an electronic pre-use safety check system for their fork trucks. Failure to complete the checklist within an hour of the start of a shift or noting a safety deficiency will render the fork truck inoperable. All three of these examples would be beneficial if shared with and/or implemented in more facilities.
Seven of the nine verification reports described a culture of management and employee commitment and involvement in the facilities that rises above and beyond. Labor-Management communication exists at a very high level.

In addition to the notable positive results listed above, the verification reports also revealed similar or the same areas needing improvement present at multiple facilities. For Example: 1. Four of the nine plant reports listed the need for better hazard identification mechanisms in the facilities. 2. Four of the verifications observed the need for upgrades to the sites' hearing conservation programs and noise monitoring practices. 3. Deficiencies in machine guarding were observed and documented in seven of the nine verification reports.

Regardless of whether the issues are considered best practices or areas needing improvement, the OSP participants have an opportunity to share these observations with each other and assist all of their plants in implementing the best practices or finding a consistent and effective way to identify and mitigate hazardous conditions.
2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed provide the following totals)

Self-inspections performed

0

Hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated

0

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

Although the Partnership does not collect and track this information, some of the verification reports noted the sites' performance of daily audits and observations to identify hazards.

2j. Other Activities (briefly describe other activities performed)

No additional information was reported for 2012.

Section 3 Illness and Injury Information

The tables below represent cumulative injury and illness rates by industry as compared to the 2011 BLS injury and illness rates for those same industries.

NAICS 332111: Iron and Steel Forging (1 Participating Facility)

Year

Hours

Total Cases

TCIR

# of Days Away from Work Restricted
and Transferred Activity Cases

DART

2010

144,426

3

4.15

0

0.0

2011

190,943

11

11.52

1

1.05

2012

195,292

9

9.22

0

0.0

Total

530,661

23

 

1

 

Three Year Average Rate

8.30

 

0.35

2011 BLS Rates for NAICS 332111

7.4

 

4.1

NAICS 336111: Automobile Manufacturing (6 Participating Facilities)

Year

Hours

Total Cases

TCIR

# of Days Away from Work Restricted
and Transferred Activity Cases

DART

2010

32,348,623

2,740

16.94

588

3.64

2011

39,972,052

2,901

14.52

713

3.57

2012

35,690,902

2,319

11.75

486

2.63

Total

108,011,577

7,960

 

1,787

 

Three Year Average Rate

14.40

 

3.28

2011 BLS Rates for NAICS 336111

6.7

 

3.8

NAICS 336312: Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (5 Participating Facilities)

Year

Hours

Total Cases

TCIR

# of Days Away from Work Restricted
and Transferred Activity Cases

DART

2010

7,191,504

289

8.04

94

2.61

2011

8,144,973

252

6.19

62

1.52

2012

7,719,786

231

5.98

58

1.50

Total

23,056,263

772

 

214

 

Three Year Average Rates

6.74

 

1.88

2011 BLS Rates for NAICS 336312

5.0

 

2.8

NAICS 336350: Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing (4 Participating Facilities)

Year

Hours

Total Cases

TCIR

# of Days Away from Work Restricted
and Transferred Activity Cases

DART

2010

12,468,687

500

8.02

144

2.31

2011

12,499,618

486

7.30

132

2.11

2012

12,991,069

401

6.17

139

2.14

Total

37,909,374

1,387

 

415

 

Three Year Average Rates

7.16

 

2.19

2011 BLS Rates for NAICS 336350

4.9

 

2.3

NAICS 336370 Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping (5 Participating Facilities)

Year

Hours

Total Cases

TCIR

# of Days Away from Work Restricted
and Transferred Activity Cases

DART

2010

6,195,786

356

11.49

67

2.16

2011

6,883,175

384

11.16

56

1.63

2012

6,409,272

369

11.51

50

1.56

Total

19,488,233

1,109

 

173

 

Three Year Average Rate

11.39

 

1.78

2011 BLS Rates for NAICS 336370

7.4

 

3.1

NAICS 423120: Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers (3 Participating Facilities)

Year

Hours

Total Cases

TCIR

# of Days Away from Work Restricted
and Transferred Activity Cases

DART

2010

2,744,444

135

9.84

43

3.13

2011

2,760,435

106

7.68

45

3.26

2012

2,793,687

92

6.59

38

2.72

Total

8,298,566

333

 

126

 

Three Year Average Rates

8.04

 

3.04

2011 BLS Rates for NAICS 423120

4.2

 

2.1

Comments

There are six industries represented in the 2012 partnership. Twenty-four sites are divided into the six industries. The data above reflects cumulative injury and illness rates for the combined number of participating sites in each industry.

Overall, all but one industry grouping has reduced their TCIRs from 2011 to 2012. However, all of the TCIRs (individual and cumulative) are well above the 2011 TCIR for the industries reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Conversely, all but one industry grouping has reduced their DART rates from 2011 to 2012 and also reports their DART rates to be below the 2011 BLS DART rate.

These results show continued progress by the participating sites in reducing their injury and illness rates. The injury and illness rates for individual participating sites are in Appendix A.

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

Changes

Challenges

Management Structure

  

Participants

  

Data Collection

 

X

Employee Involvement

  

OSHA Enforcement Inspections

  

Partnership Outreach

  

Training

X

X

Other (specify)

  

Comments

MIOSHA Reported: Data collection remains a challenge on a corporate level. The employer is engaged with the Union to create a system where this data can be maintained.

Ford Corporate Reported: In 2012 Ford developed SABA training tracking system. This is due to be launched mid-year 2013. Ford anticipates the ability to better track all training records (for example: when individuals move to different jobs or plants)

Plans to Improve (check all applicable)

Meet more often

 

Improve data collection

 

Conduct more training

 

Change goals

 

Comments

Partnership agreement is scheduled to be renewed in 2013. DCSP recommends discussing innovative ideas to take the partnership to the next level.

Partnership Benefits (check all applicable)

Increased safety and health awareness

Yes

Improved relationship with OSHA

Yes

Improved relationship with employers

Yes

Improved relationship with employees or unions

Yes

Increased number of participants

No

Other (specify)

 
Comments

MIOSHA Reported: Overall the partnership was well received at all the plants receiving a partnership visit. The data sharing and collection by both parties was a great learning exercise for both. I believe through the partnership and the PMT meetings in 2012 we developed better relations with all the regions and more open dialog where plants are afraid of picking up the phone and calling to ask questions about certain issues. Also, OSHA/MIOSHA would make phone calls to the plant to ask questions about any items of concerns or informal complaints.

In 2012 the partnership strengthened and there was more dialog by all the parties. We also participated in the 5 year strategic planning for MIOSHA; these were good meetings to help develop where we want to go in the future and also to network with other companies outside the automotive industry.

Status Recommendation

Partnership Completed

 

Continue/Renew

Yes

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.

Close