BAE SYSTEMS INC

80% of inspections at this establishment produced violations, with 3 inspections producing serious-or-greater violations.

Top OSHA standards cited at this employer, ranked by citation count. Standards (CFR sections) cluster citations into safety themes -- machine guarding, lockout-tagout, hazard communication, fall protection, process safety, etc. A concentration on one or two sections reveals a pattern that individual citations don’t. 20 distinct standards shown · 23 citations in this view · $92,300 in penalties.

Source: OSHA inspection citations (violation_detail). CFR section codes can be looked up at osha.gov/laws-regs for the formal standard text. Per-inspection detail and the specific violation descriptions are available by expanding individual inspections below.

Recordable injury rates the employer filed with OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application. DART covers cases with days away, restricted, or transferred; TRIR is the total recordable case rate.

Reported for 37 average annual employees at this establishment.

Source: OSHA ITA Form 300A (employer self-reported). Rates are per 100 full-time equivalent workers. Establishments below the ~10-FTE threshold are not required to report.

No severe injury reports (hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye) on file under 29 CFR 1904.39 for BAE SYSTEMS INC. Verify directly with Occupational Safety and Health Administration →

No WHD wage, overtime, or child-labor enforcement cases on file for BAE SYSTEMS INC. Verify directly with Wage and Hour Division →

No MSHA mine safety violations on file for BAE SYSTEMS INC. Verify directly with Mine Safety and Health Administration →

Company-level in TX — for BAE Systems, not this location alone

National Labor Relations Board — unfair labor practice charges and union representation cases. The NLRB records cases at the company/regional level (no worksite address), so these are matched by company name and state and may span other BAE Systems locations in the same state.

National Labor Relations Board cases involving this employer. Includes unfair labor practice (ULP) filings and representation election proceedings. NLRB enforcement is process-driven; no per-case monetary penalty is assessed (remedies are case-by-case backpay orders, posting requirements, election re-runs, etc.). 7 cases · 7 ULP

Source: NLRB case files. Rows shown are those the agency has published. Region numbers (1–31) correspond to NLRB's geographic offices.

No H-1B, H-2A, or H-2B labor condition applications on file (historical data only — DOL ended OFLC publication) for BAE SYSTEMS INC. Verify directly with Office of Foreign Labor Certification →

EPA Enforcement and Compliance History — Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act. Status: Violation Identified.

Every EPA ECHO facility associated with this employer, sorted most-significant first. Each row links to EPA’s Detailed Facility Report for the source-of-truth record. Permits column lists active programs (Air = Clean Air Act, Water = Clean Water Act, RCRA = hazardous waste, TRI = Toxics Release Inventory reporting). 1 facility · $43,625 in assessed penalties.

Source: EPA ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online). Compliance status follows EPA’s own labels (“Sig Violation” = significant noncompliance; QNCR = quarters of noncompliance over the recent reporting window). Inactive facilities (struck through) retain historical enforcement records even after operations ceased.

First case: 2010-03-02. Most recent: 2010-03-02. Source: UVA Corporate Prosecution Registry — federal pleas, DPAs, and NPAs.

Federal corporate prosecution records from the University of Virginia Corporate Prosecution Registry. DPA = Deferred Prosecution Agreement; NPA = Non-Prosecution Agreement; both are pre-trial settlements where the defendant accepts terms but avoids conviction. Monitor = court-appointed compliance oversight, usually 2-5 years. 1 case · 1 plea/conviction · $400,000,000 in penalties / restitution.

Source: University of Virginia Corporate Prosecution Registry (maintained by Prof. Brandon L. Garrett, Duke University). The registry has no state or jurisdiction-of-incorporation field on the company side, so same-name employers in different states may mis-attribute -- verify against the source case documents when precision matters.