How We Rebuilt an End‑of‑Line Operation from the Ground Up

By Jake McGeary

When I was first brought into this project, the issue wasn’t a single machine or a single bottleneck. It was risk.

The plant was running a manual end‑of‑line operation that required eight to ten people just to pack product into cases. On top of that, two more employees were needed to palletize finished cases and move them by forklift to a stretch wrapper located in another area of the facility. In tight quarters, with forklifts constantly moving and employees working around them, safety was already a concern.

But labor availability was the bigger threat.

The plant manager told me plainly: “I’m one person away from shutting the plant down.” If someone didn’t show up, production stopped. That’s not a sustainable way to run a food manufacturing operation.

The goal wasn’t just automation. It was stability, safety, and control.

Starting with the Right Packaging Strategy

The first decision we had to make was how the product would be packed.

This was a pet food application, and the product couldn’t be dropped into cases without risking breakage or turning it into crumbs.

A traditional drop packer wasn’t an option. The solution needed to place product gently, consistently, and securely.

That’s why we focused on wraparound case packing.

With a wraparound system, the product is collated and placed into position, and the corrugated blank is wrapped around it. Nothing is dropped. Nothing is thrown. The case forms tightly around the product, maintaining integrity while improving case strength.

Based on past experience, I knew the Aetna Robopac / Sotemapack wraparound case packers were the right fit for this application. We worked closely with their team to design a system built specifically for the product, the space constraints, and the customer’s long‑term goals.

Solving More Than Case Packing

Once the case packing strategy was defined, it became clear that stopping there wouldn’t solve the real problem.

If we automated case packing but left palletizing and stretch wrapping as manual, we’d still have forklifts crossing the floor, employees working around them, and pallets being moved from one area of the plant to another before being secured. That meant safety risks, product damage potential, and unnecessary labor remained.

Space was also a major constraint. There wasn’t room to add standalone palletizers and stretch wrappers in separate locations.

So instead of treating this as a machine purchase, we treated it as a system design.

The solution combined:

 • Two wraparound case packers feeding
 • Inline palletizers with
 • Integrated stretch wrapping — all within a compact footprint

By palletizing and wrapping cases immediately at the end of the line, we eliminated the need to transport unstable pallets across the facility entirely.

Reducing Labor Without Losing Capability

Before automation, the line required:

 • Eight to ten people packing cases
 • Two people palletizing
 • Additional forklift traffic to move pallets to wrapping

After automation:

 • Case packing, palletizing, and stretch wrapping happen automatically
 • One forklift operator removes finished, fully wrapped pallets from the line

The labor wasn’t eliminated — it was reallocated. Those employees could now support upstream operations, production, or shipping instead of performing repetitive, high‑risk manual tasks.

Just as importantly, the plant reduced its exposure to shutdown risk caused by labor shortages.

Improving Safety Where It Matters Most

Forklift traffic is one of the most common sources of safety incidents in manufacturing environments, especially in tight spaces.

Previously, forklifts were moving pallets across the plant while employees were working nearby. Pallets weren’t always fully secured until after they reached the stretch wrapper, which introduced the risk of shifting or falling loads.

With the new system:

 • Pallets are built and wrapped in one place
 • Only one forklift operates in the area
 • No employees are walking around active palletizing zones

That change alone significantly reduced OSHA concerns and improved overall plant safety.

Rethinking the Case Itself

Automation also gave us the opportunity to rethink the packaging design.

Before, the customer used a traditional box and tray combination. That meant more corrugate, more material handling, and more waste downstream.

The new wraparound case is a die‑cut design with perforations. At retail, the top portion of the case is removed, leaving a tray for display — all from a single piece of corrugated.

The result:

 • Approximately 30% reduction in corrugate usage
 • Lower material costs
 • Less packaging waste entering the waste stream

In states with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, reductions like this can also help lower reporting volumes and associated fees.

Why Integration Matters

Other solutions were considered early in the process, but many required larger footprints or higher capital costs. Some options would have required double the investment while delivering less flexibility.

By integrating case packing, palletizing, and stretch wrapping into a single coordinated system — and by working closely with the right equipment partners — we were able to deliver a solution that fit the space, reduced risk, and scaled across multiple lines.

That’s the real takeaway.

Automation works best when it’s designed as a complete system, not a collection of disconnected machines. When packaging, labor, safety, and material usage are considered together, the result isn’t just efficiency, it’s resilience! Learn more about this project by checking out the case study here!

About the Author

Jake McGeary is Group O's Northeast and Middle Atlantic Packaging Sales Manager. With hands‑on experience coordinating complex packaging projects, Jake specializes in integrated solutions that connect case packing, palletizing, and load containment into a single, streamlined system. He works closely with operations teams, OEM partners, and engineering resources to ensure each solution is tailored to the customer’s product requirements, facility constraints, and labor realities. Jake is known for taking a system‑level approach to automation—looking beyond individual machines to address broader challenges such as labor availability, forklift safety, space limitations, and material reduction. His work often involves managing multiple suppliers and aligning equipment design with real‑world production demands, particularly in food manufacturing environments where product integrity and consistency are critical.