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	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)^*

Goals of Partnership

Goal

Strategy

Measure

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 ^*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.

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

Evaluation Period
Date of Evaluation Report		September 2, 2015
Start Date	January 1, 2012	End Date	December 31, 2012

Evaluation Contact Person		Jacqueline R. Annis
Originating Office		OSHA 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: 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. Three of the nine facilities are using notable heat stress prevention practices. 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.

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 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:

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.
Three of the nine facilities are using notable heat stress prevention practices.
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.

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)