THE prospect of a 75 per cent vote in favour of the merger with Avonmore at two special general meetings of Waterford Co-op has received a blow. One of the four advisory committees in Co Waterford unanimously rejected the proposals.
The 15 members of the Kilmeaden Advisory Committee, which represents 180 farmers who supply eight million gallons of milk, and 350 co-op shareholders when "dry" members are included, turned down the Avonmore proposal as "not in the long-term interests of milk suppliers".
Mr Michael Queally, one of Kilmeaden's two members of the co-op board, said the advisory committee intended to tell farmers why they should oppose the merger proposal, which would give Avonmore 60 per cent of the merged company, and which promised farmers a 3p premium on the average milk price, for the three years after the merger.
The Kilmeaden advisory committee is one of four such committees in Waterford and its members are elected from five branches of the co-op, covering an area from Kilmacthomas to Waterford city and from Portlaw to Tramore.
Kilmeaden has two directors on the 35-strong co-op board, Mr Queally and Mr John Fitzgerald.
Mr Queally told The Irish Times last night that his main objection to the Avonmore proposal was that it had been pushed through the co-op board meetings too quickly.
"Last Monday week, we had the second offer from Avonmore and there was a huge urgency from management to approve it. Then we were told at 4.30 that afternoon that it had to be finished that night, there could not be another postponement. It should at least have gone to the advisory committees.
"We are throwing away what we have too fast. Could we not have put the business back on its feet ourselves? We were always ahead; now it's Avonmore who will run the thing from now on. Even the headquarters will be in Kilkenny," he said, voicing serious concern at the impact of the proposed merger on Dungarvan, where the Waterford head office is located.
While Mr Queally said the Kilmeaden committee intended to inform farmers why they should oppose the merger, he said the committee was not getting the information it wanted. "We want figures but we are not getting them," he said.
But Mr Queally's criticism was strongly rejected by a Waterford spokesman who said the move to take a decision on the Avonmore proposal at last Monday week's meeting had been taken by an overwhelming majority of the co-op board.
The spokesman added that at other meetings of advisory committees there had been positive reaction to the merger proposal. He said that the response of the Kilmeaden group was not representative of the wider area.
"When the process of providing information is completed and the package explained, we believe there will be widespread support for the merger," he said.
Meanwhile, SIPTU condemned the management of Avonmore and Waterford "for totally ignoring their workforces in the process of consultation and decision-making now taking place in respect of the proposed merger".
