OSHA Strategic Partnership Program
Annual Partnership Evaluation Report

2009 Annual Evaluation

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		TCIR DART 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	01/01/2008	End Date	12/31/2008
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	14,124
Industry Coverage (note range or specific SIC and NAICS for each partner)
Partner		SIC	NAICS
Chicago Assembly Plant, Chicago, Illinois		3711	336111
Chicago Stamping Plant, Chicago, Illinois		3465	336370
Kansas City Assembly Plant, Kansas City, Missouri		3711	336111
Buffalo Stamping Plant, Hamburg, New York		3464	336170
Cleveland Casting Plant, Brook Park, Ohio		3356	331315
Cleveland Engine Plant #1, Brook Park, Ohio		3714	336312
Cleveland Engine Plant #2, Brook Park, Ohio		3714	336312
Lima Engine Plant, Lima, Ohio		3714	336312
Ohio Assembly Plant, Avon Lake, Ohio		3711	336111
Sharonville Transmission Plant, Sharonville, Ohio		3714	336350
Walton Hills Stamping Plant, Walton Hills, Ohio		3465	336370
Sandusky Plastics Plant, Sandusky, Ohio (ACH, LLC)		3089	326199
*Tulsa Glass Plant, Tulsa, Oklahoma (ACH, LLC)		3231	327215

^*Tulsa Glass Plant was sold in April 2008 and as a result, left the OSP at that time; at the end of evaluation period, 12 sites were actively participating in the OSP

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		14,124
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)
Training courses offered in 2008 includes: Hazard Communications, Propane Handling Safety, Energy Control Power Lockout, Energy Control Power Lockout Refresher, Guidelines Responsibilities Safe Practices, Lifting and Rigging, Trouble shooting, Maintenance Vehicle, Overhead and Gantry Crane Operator, Overhead Crane Inspection, Hex Chrome, PMHV Pedestrian, PMHV Operator, Confined Space Entry Entrant-Attendant, Confined Space Entry Permit Issuer, Skilled Trades Job Safety Analysis, Working-at-Heights, Backflow Prevention Certification, Construction Safety, OHSIM Investigator, General Safety Orientation, and Other Emergency Preparedness Training (First Responder, Incident Command, ERT, HAZMAT, SCBA, and Incipient Fire). The number of training hours was not identified as the great majority of the training was done through Computer Based Training (CBT) and it is typically performed at the employee's/supervisor's pace making the number of hours difficult to ascertain. *The number of managers/supervisors trained is combined with the number of employees.

2c. Safety and Health Management Systems (if performed, provide the following total)
Systems implemented or improved using the 1989 Guidelines as a model	13
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Corporate-Wide Improvements: Ford moved forward with its strategic planning of safety and health management. The six items listed below briefly describe the major initiatives pursued during the evaluation period: Zurich Top-6 Risk Management Initiatives: Based on comprehensive data analysis of historic injury-illness trends, UAW and Ford partnered with Zurich Risk Engineering to implement six risk-based initiatives to minimize the potential for injuries associated with: 1) Non-Standard Production Work; 2) Powered Material Handling Vehicle-Pedestrian Safety; 3) Personal Protective Equipment Process; 4) Energy Control & Power Lockout; 5) Work Rules-Safe Behavior Index; and 6) Walking and Working Surfaces. Safety and Health Assessment Review Process: UAW, Ford, and ACH completed the implementation of the new Safety and Health Assessment Review Process (SHARP), including training for assessors and site element leads. Baseline assessments were completed at all UAW-represented manufacturing sites. Risk Assessment Methodologies: UAW, Ford, and ACH continued to incorporate risk assessment methods into the design, build, modification, and commissioning phases for new machinery-equipment procurements to support the proactive identification and elimination of workplace hazards. New Machinery-Equipment Technology: Ford continued to incorporate new technology (e.g. control reliable) into new site manufacturing processes to ensure the integrity of machinery/equipment-related safety control systems that prevent exposures to uncontrolled hazards while ensuring safe work practices. 2008 President's Health and Safety Awards Program: Hosted by Mark Fields, President of the Americas at Ford World Headquarters, the program was developed to recognize North American site and organizational contributions supporting innovative solutions, best practices, safety leadership engagement, and safety professional achievements. Powered Train Operations (PTO): Safety Operating System: Ford completed its second year of implementation of a standardized Safety Operating System to manage completion/confirmation of critical safety tasks (i.e. regulatory, contractual, and corporate safety and health requirements) through increased employee engagement at all levels of the organization. Summaries of the improvements made at each OSP site as observed by OSHA Day attendees are included in Appendix A: Individual Site Summaries. Finally, during the October 2008 Partnership Management Team (PMT) meeting on October 9, 2008 in Detroit, Michigan, an OSHA representative provided a presentation on the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP). At this same meeting, representatives from Michigan and Indiana's Departments of Labor also provided presentations on their respective VPPs.

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	3
OSHA enforcement inspection with violations cited	2
Average number of citations classified as Serious, Repeat, and Willful	1
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Sharonville Transmission Plant #311824528; Opened January 30, 2008; Closed February 6, 2008 Response to a complaint No citations issued Chicago Assembly Plant: #311374169; Opened May 21, 2008; Closed June 24, 2008 Response to a complaint No citations issued Sharonville Transmission Plant: #312564115; Opened October 6, 2008; Closed December 11, 2008 Referral Informal Settlement: $2500 Standard Cited: 19100.147 C04 II The Control of Hazardous Energy, Lockout/Tagout (Serious) While trouble shooting the loader cycle, an electrician activated a limit switch at the end of the Autocon conveyor activating the loader, pinning him between the carrier transfer arm and the conveyor frame. Ohio Assembly Plant, Avon Lake: #311605943; Opened October 22, 2008; Closed October 22, 2008 Response to a complaint No citations issued Cleveland Casting Plant: #310759071; Opened November 5, 2008; Closed May 19, 2009 One Serious Violation; Two Other Than Serious Informal Settlement: $1,488 Standards Cited: 19100023 A08 Guarding Floor & Wall Openings & Holes (Other than Serious) 19100023 C01 Guarding Floor & Wall Openings & Holes (Serious) 19100022 A03 Walking-Working Surfaces, General Requirements (Other than Serious)

2h. Onsite Non-Enforcement Verification (if performed, provide the following total)
Onsite non-enforcement verifications performed	7
Comments/Explanations (briefly describe activities, or explain if activity provided for but not performed)
Eleven (11) out of 13 sites had OSHA Day events. Tulsa Glass Plant did not have an OSHA Day visit because it was sold in April 2008. The Ohio Assembly Plant did not have an OSHA Day visit because an OSHA enforcement inspection was conducted on October 22, 2008. SHMS improvements noted at the participating sites included: Housekeeping Ergonomics Personal Protection Equipment Injury/Illness Rates Areas identified for improvement based on a review of OSHA Day documentation/reports included: Injury Illness Rates (3) Ergonomics (4) Employee Involvement (1) Slips/Trips/Falls (2) Emergency Preparedness (2) Confined Space (1) Job Safety Analysis (2) Personal Protection Equipment (2) Fall Hazards (2) Noise Protection Controls (2) ARC Flash Hazards (1) Contractor Safety (1) Accident Investigations (2) For individual site observations noted during each OSHA Day, see Appendix A: Individual Site Summaries.

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)

Eleven (11) out of 13 sites had OSHA Day events. Tulsa Glass Plant did not have an OSHA Day visit because it was sold in April 2008. The Ohio Assembly Plant did not have an OSHA Day visit because an OSHA enforcement inspection was conducted on October 22, 2008.

SHMS improvements noted at the participating sites included:

Housekeeping
Ergonomics
Personal Protection Equipment
Injury/Illness Rates

Areas identified for improvement based on a review of OSHA Day documentation/reports included:

Injury Illness Rates (3)
Ergonomics (4)
Employee Involvement (1)
Slips/Trips/Falls (2)
Emergency Preparedness (2)
Confined Space (1)
Job Safety Analysis (2)
Personal Protection Equipment (2)
Fall Hazards (2)
Noise Protection Controls (2)
ARC Flash Hazards (1)
Contractor Safety (1)
Accident Investigations (2)

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

2i. Participant Self-Inspections (if performed, provide the following total)
Self-inspections performed	5,317
Hazards and/or violations identified and corrected/abated	2,454
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 (PMHV) - Pedestrian (quarterly) Safe Behaviors Index (weekly) Leadership Safety Walks - Tours Process (weekly) General Robotics, Automation, Sensing and Perception (GRASP) - Daily Start Up (daily)

Section 3 Illness and Injury Information

Partnership Totals

Year	Hours	Total Cases	TCIR	DART Cases	DART	LTCR Cases	LTCR
2006	42,838,377	4,083	19.1	2,106	9.8	408	1.9
2007	38,210,104	3,213	16.8	956	5.0	198	1.0
2008	29,511,822	1,935	13.1	412	2.8	114	0.8
Total	110,560,303	9,231		3,474		720
Three-year Rate (2006-2008)			16.7		6.3		1.3

Comments
In 2008 the OSP sites continued to improve their injury and illness rates, including TCIR, DART rate, and LTCR. The information provided below is a summary of each site's performance. For additional detailed site information (including individual incidence rates and the 2007 BLS Industry Averages), see Appendix A. 2008 Results In 2008, the OSP participating sites: Achieved an overall TCIR of 13.1, representing a 22 percent reduction from 2007's rate of 16.8 Achieved an overall DART rate of 2.8, representing a 44 percent reduction from 2007's rate of 5.0 Reduced their overall LTCR by 20 percent, from 1.0 in 2007 to 0.8 3-Year Results During the 3-year period 2006-2008, the OSP sites achieved a 31 percent reduction in the overall TCIR rate, a 71 percent reduction in the overall DART rate, and a 58 percent reduction in the LTCR rate: 2006-2008 TCIR: For the 3-year period, the OSP participating sites achieved an overall rate of 16.7 2006-2008 DART: For the 3-year period, the OSP participating sites achieved an overall rate of 6.3 The DART rate is an indicator of severity. The significant reductions in DART rate (both overall and individual site reductions) point to the OSP's success in reducing serious injuries and illnesses. Introduction to Charts The following charts show results for each currently participating OSP site. 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 2 of this Annual Evaluation Report. The first three charts (Figure 1 TCIR; Figure 2 DART; and Figure 3 LTCR) illustrate the percentage change between 2007 and 2008 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. The last two charts show how each site's 1-year and 3-year TCIR and DART rates compare to 2007 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.

Comments

In 2008 the OSP sites continued to improve their injury and illness rates, including TCIR, DART rate, and LTCR. The information provided below is a summary of each site's performance. For additional detailed site information (including individual incidence rates and the 2007 BLS Industry Averages), see Appendix A.

2008 Results
In 2008, the OSP participating sites:

Achieved an overall TCIR of 13.1, representing a 22 percent reduction from 2007's rate of 16.8
Achieved an overall DART rate of 2.8, representing a 44 percent reduction from 2007's rate of 5.0
Reduced their overall LTCR by 20 percent, from 1.0 in 2007 to 0.8

3-Year Results
During the 3-year period 2006-2008, the OSP sites achieved a 31 percent reduction in the overall TCIR rate, a 71 percent reduction in the overall DART rate, and a 58 percent reduction in the LTCR rate:

2006-2008 TCIR: For the 3-year period, the OSP participating sites achieved an overall rate of 16.7
2006-2008 DART: For the 3-year period, the OSP participating sites achieved an overall rate of 6.3

The DART rate is an indicator of severity. The significant reductions in DART rate (both overall and individual site reductions) point to the OSP's success in reducing serious injuries and illnesses.

Introduction to Charts
The following charts show results for each currently participating OSP site. 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 2 of this Annual Evaluation Report.

The first three charts (Figure 1 TCIR; Figure 2 DART; and Figure 3 LTCR) illustrate the percentage change between 2007 and 2008 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.

The last two charts show how each site's 1-year and 3-year TCIR and DART rates compare to 2007 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 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Section 4 Partnership Plans, Benefits, and Recommendations

Changes and Challenges (check all applicable)
	Changes	Challenges
Management Structure	X
Participants	X
Data Collection	X	X
Employee Involvement
OSHA Enforcement Inspection
Partnership Outreach
Training
Other (Specify)
Comments
Management Structure: As described in the 2007 Annual Evaluation and also briefly described in Section 2c above (SHMS Improvements), UAW, Ford, and ACH have overhauled the assessment process and taken several steps that show management commitment to strengthening the safety and health aspect of overall corporate governance. In addition, safety and health effectiveness is one of the criteria used to evaluate management/executive performance. Participants: The Tulsa Glass Plant of ACH was sold in April. As of December 31, 2008, there is only one ACH site in the OSP. Data Collection: Data collection continues to present a challenge. There are thirteen sites from which data must be collected. Interpretations of certain data points continue to vary among the sites, making it difficult to ensure that the data collection process is consistent. However, the PMT has taken several steps to coordinate and streamline the process and intends to continue to improve the data collection process for the final year of the OSP.

Plans to Improve (check all applicable)
	Improvements	N/A
Meet more often
Improve data collection	X
Conduct more training
Change goals
Comments
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
Increased number of participants
Other (specify)
Comments
Among its participating sites, the OSP has experienced reductions in its overall injury and illness rates since its inception in 2000. The trends in injury and illness rate reductions continue as UAW and Ford continue to enhance their safety and health management efforts through the overhaul of their self-assessment process (SHARP). The benefits of participating in the OSP are becoming evident at the individual site level. In addition to the trends of reductions to their injury and illness rates, some sites have begun to outperform their industry counterparts. In 2008, three sites participating in the OSP achieved a TCIR which was below the 2007 BLS Industry average for their NAICS classification. Further in 2008, ten out of twelve OSP participating sites experienced a DART rate below their industry average.

Status Recommendations (check one)
Partnership Completed
Continue/Renew	X
Continue with the following provisions:

Terminate (provide explanation)