When Your Stackers Quit Every 90 Days, It’s Time to Rethink the Pallet

Here’s the bottom line upfront: if you’re running a high-mix operation with chronic labor turnover and no space for a traditional robot cell, modular collaborative robot (cobot) palletizing isn’t just an option—it might be your only viable path to stability. I’ve seen the alternative: the chaos of a line shutting down because your third new hire this quarter didn’t show up. The case study from Nyco Products, a cleaning chemical maker with nearly 900 SKUs, proves the point. They rolled out four cobot palletizers, saw an 11% throughput bump, cut six full-time roles (and 61% of their temp labor), and calculated a 1.88-year payback. That’s not futurism; that’s a spreadsheet-friendly fix for a very present-day problem.

Some context on where I’m coming from: I’ve been a packaging coordinator in the chemical sector for eight years, managing end-of-line operations for a mid-size manufacturer. I’ve personally documented—and paid for—enough manual palletizing mistakes to fund a small vacation. Crooked stacks that collapsed in the warehouse, last-minute agency calls when someone quit, the endless cycle of training someone new only to have them leave. When I read about Nyco’s move, it wasn’t a surprise; it was a confirmation of what I’ve come to believe: the old way is a hidden cost center.

The Problem Wasn't Just Absenteeism—It Was the Whole Model

Nyco’s situation will sound familiar to anyone in mid-volume, high-variability manufacturing. They had five lines packed tight, about 900 different SKUs, and a stacking role with a 90-day average turnover. Think about that: every three months, you’re starting from scratch with a new person on a repetitive, physically demanding job. The CEO, Bob Stahurski, said they were pulling skilled operators off their machines just to keep pallets moving. That’s a double loss: you’re overpaying for a simple task while underutilizing your best people.

I’ve been there. We once had a critical shipment delayed because our two stackers both called in sick on the same day. The line manager and I ended up stacking pallets for three hours. We got the order out, but the cost wasn’t just our salaries—it was every other task that didn’t get done that afternoon.

Why Modular Cobots Won the Space (and Flexibility) Argument

Nyco’s top constraint was physical space—lines were too close for a bulky traditional robotic cell with full guarding. Their search led them to beRobox’s PALTZ system, a modular unit built around a Doosan cobot. The specs matter here: units with 30-kg and 18-kg payloads, heights under 92 inches, and a compact footprint that ditches the safety cages by controlling speed and reach.

This is where my own thinking shifted. I used to assume “automation” meant a massive, fixed installation. But the PALTZ system is essentially a plug-and-play module. They connected it to their existing case sealers with a 3-foot roller conveyor. The demo unit was running in their plant the day it arrived. From first contact to four units running was about 70 days. That timeline alone changes the ROI math dramatically—you’re not losing a year of production to an installation black hole.

The flexibility is in the software. Operators use a touchscreen HMI (beRobox’s STACKiT) to select programs for different case patterns. With hundreds of SKUs, quick changeover isn’t a luxury; it’s the requirement. This is the part most generic automation articles gloss over: it’s not just about the robot arm, it’s about the system knowing how to handle a case of four 1-gallon jugs differently than a case of 32-ounce bottles.

The Real Payback: Labor, Quality, and an Unexpected Marketing Win

The financial return—1.88-year payback—is the headline number and meets a solid “under three years” benchmark. But the operational returns are more interesting.

• Labor Transformation: They didn’t just eliminate six FTE positions; they converted the “stacker” role into a “cobot operator and setup” role. Two employees moved into programming and oversight. This is critical: automation works when it upskills people, not just when it replaces them. High turnover stopped because the job became more valuable.
• Pallet Quality: Stahurski said it simply: “Case placement is perfect on the pallets.” In my experience, a perfectly stacked pallet means no load shifts in transit, no crushed boxes, and fewer customer complaints. That’s a silent but massive cost avoidance.
• The “Tour” Effect: This one surprised me, but it makes sense. Stahurski noted that plant tours for customers now feature the cobots, and “everyone loves to watch them.” It signals investment and modern capability. I hadn’t considered automation as a marketing tool, but it absolutely is.

So, Should You Copy This Playbook?

If your pain points align—high labor churn in repetitive tasks, space limits, high product mix—then this case study is a near-perfect blueprint. The modular, quick-to-deploy nature of these cobot systems lowers the barrier to entry and the risk.

The key lesson isn’t the brand of robot they chose. It’s the mindset: they treated a chronic operational bleed (90-day turnover) as a systems problem solvable with flexible technology. They involved their teams, communicated the “why” (solving the turnover problem the employees themselves flagged), and moved fast from demo to scale.

For the rest of us managing the end of the line, the writing isn’t just on the wall—it’s neatly stacked on a pallet, placed perfectly by a cobot that doesn’t take a sick day.