Contingencies (Note)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 01, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Legal Contingencies From time to time, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial claimed amounts) arising out of the conduct of its business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, product liability, intellectual property and other matters. Items included in these other matters are discussed below. The Company believes recorded reserves in its Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable outcomes of the items discussed below. Any recorded liabilities were not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operation or liquidity and the Company does not currently believe that any pending claims or litigation, including those identified below, will materially affect its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Donaldson On May 15, 2009, Donaldson Company, Inc. (“Donaldson”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain “ChannelFlow®” engine/mobile filters manufactured and sold by, Baldwin Filters, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, infringed one or more patents held by Donaldson. On February 1, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ending the lawsuit, the terms of which are confidential. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Baldwin agreed to pay certain present and future amounts to Donaldson in exchange for a license to produce certain existing ChannelFlow® products. The Company expensed $531 related to this settlement in the nine months ended September 1, 2012, which is included in Selling and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Statements of Earnings. Antitrust/Qui Tam On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters, Inc. (the “Defendant Group” and "Baldwin," respectively), engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters. The suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, were filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. In addition, the Attorneys General of the State of Florida and the County of Suffolk, New York filed complaints against the Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney General of the State of Washington requested various documents, information and cooperation, which the Company agreed to provide. All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and/or on behalf of governmental entities, were consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court"). The Company has consistently denied any wrongdoing whatsoever and has vigorously defended the action. On October 7, 2011, Baldwin entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement") with the putative plaintiff classes involved in the action, including the State of Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Baldwin denied any wrongdoing whatsoever but agreed to pay a total of $625, which was fully reserved in fiscal year 2011, to a settlement fund to be divided among the plaintiff classes in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims with prejudice. The Company entered into the Settlement Agreement to free itself from the expense of ongoing litigation, which was anticipated to be many times greater than the agreed settlement amount. The Company has paid the majority of the settlement amount into escrow. The Settlement Agreement will become effective after the Court enters a final judgment order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the causes of action against Baldwin with prejudice and without costs, and the time for appealing the foregoing expires. The Company is unable to predict when these conditions will be satisfied, but the Company is unaware of any objections or obstacles, and believes that these conditions will be satisfied in due course and in keeping with normal judicial time lines. TransWeb/3M On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe certain 3M patents. Shortly after receiving service of process in this litigation, TransWeb filed its own complaint against 3M in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and that the products in question do not infringe. 3M withdrew its Minnesota action, and the parties are currently litigating the matter in New Jersey. The litigation in question was filed and underway before the Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010, but the Company assumed the risk of this litigation as a result of the acquisition. The Company is vigorously defending the action and pursuing related claims. In this regard, on June 3, 2011, TransWeb filed a Second Amended Complaint against 3M, (i) seeking declaratory judgment that the asserted 3M patents are invalid, the TransWeb products in question do not infringe, and the 3M patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by 3M in obtaining the patents, (ii) alleging patent infringement by 3M of a patent held by TransWeb, and (iii) alleging antitrust violations by 3M in connection with the personal respirator market. The Company has since dropped its patent infringement allegations against 3M, but continues to allege and pursue its inequitable conduct and antitrust claims. On May 24, 2012, the court tentatively set the case for trial on September 4, 2012, which the court subsequently postponed until October 29, 2012. Each side has also filed dispositive motions seeking the court to rule, as a matter, of law, that it is entitled to judgment in their respective favor in respect of one or more aspects of the case. The Company is unable to predict how or when the court will rule on these motions. The Company acquired TransWeb on December 29, 2010 (see Note 2). Of the base purchase price, the Company withheld payment of $17,000 pending resolution of the 3M litigation, which funds may be used by the Company in connection with the same. Any litigation related amounts incurred in excess of the amount withheld will be expensed and paid by the Company. The Company currently does not anticipate total litigation related amounts to exceed the amount withheld. 3M is not seeking damages in connection with its allegations, but rather is seeking only forward-looking injunctive relief to bar TransWeb from selling products that infringe the 3M patents at issue. During the quarter and nine months ended September 1, 2012, the Company applied legal charges of $2,014 and $6,421 against the withheld payment, leaving a remaining balance of $4,250, which is included in Other accrued liabilities (see Note 7). Since the acquisition, the Company has applied legal charges of $12,750 against the withheld payment. Other Additionally, the Company is party to various proceedings relating to environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or other responsible state agencies have designated the Company as a potentially responsible party, along with other companies, in remedial activities for the cleanup of waste sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“the federal Superfund statute”). Although it is not certain what future environmental claims, if any, may be asserted, the Company currently believes that its potential liability for known environmental matters is not material. However, environmental and related remediation costs are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, including the number of parties involved, the difficulty in determining the nature and extent of the contamination at issue, the length of time remediation may require, the complexity of the environmental regulation and the continuing advancement of remediation technology. Applicable federal law may impose joint and several liability on each potentially responsible party for the cleanup. In addition to the matters cited above, the Company is involved in legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records provisions with respect to identified claims or lawsuits when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims and lawsuits are reviewed quarterly and provisions are taken or adjusted to reflect the status of a particular matter. Other Contingencies In the event of a change in control of the Company, termination benefits are likely to be required for certain executive officers and other employees.

CONTINGENCIES

Legal Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial claimed amounts) arising out of the conduct of its business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, product liability, intellectual property and other matters. Items included in these other matters are discussed below. The Company believes recorded reserves in its Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable outcomes of the items discussed below. Any recorded liabilities were not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operation or liquidity and the Company does not currently believe that any pending claims or litigation, including those identified below, will materially affect its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Donaldson

On May 15, 2009, Donaldson Company, Inc. (“Donaldson”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain “ChannelFlow®” engine/mobile filters manufactured and sold by, Baldwin Filters, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, infringed one or more patents held by Donaldson. On February 1, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ending the lawsuit, the terms of which are confidential. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Baldwin agreed to pay certain present and future amounts to Donaldson in exchange for a license to produce certain existing ChannelFlow® products. The Company expensed $531 related to this settlement in the nine months ended September 1, 2012, which is included in Selling and administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Condensed Statements of Earnings.

Antitrust/Qui Tam

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters, Inc. (the “Defendant Group” and "Baldwin," respectively), engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters. The suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, were filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. In addition, the Attorneys General of the State of Florida and the County of Suffolk, New York filed complaints against the Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney General of the State of Washington requested various documents, information and cooperation, which the Company agreed to provide. All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and/or on behalf of governmental entities, were consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court"). The Company has consistently denied any wrongdoing whatsoever and has vigorously defended the action.

On October 7, 2011, Baldwin entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement") with the putative plaintiff classes involved in the action, including the State of Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Baldwin denied any wrongdoing whatsoever but agreed to pay a total of $625, which was fully reserved in fiscal year 2011, to a settlement fund to be divided among the plaintiff classes in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims with prejudice.

The Company entered into the Settlement Agreement to free itself from the expense of ongoing litigation, which was anticipated to be many times greater than the agreed settlement amount. The Company has paid the majority of the settlement amount into escrow. The Settlement Agreement will become effective after the Court enters a final judgment order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the causes of action against Baldwin with prejudice and without costs, and the time for appealing the foregoing expires. The Company is unable to predict when these conditions will be satisfied, but the Company is unaware of any objections or obstacles, and believes that these conditions will be satisfied in due course and in keeping with normal judicial time lines.

TransWeb/3M

On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe certain 3M patents. Shortly after receiving service of process in this litigation, TransWeb filed its own complaint against 3M in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and that the products in question do not infringe. 3M withdrew its Minnesota action, and the parties are currently litigating the matter in New Jersey. The litigation in question was filed and underway before the Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010, but the Company assumed the risk of this litigation as a result of the acquisition. The Company is vigorously defending the action and pursuing related claims. In this regard, on June 3, 2011, TransWeb filed a Second Amended Complaint against 3M, (i) seeking declaratory judgment that the asserted 3M patents are invalid, the TransWeb products in question do not infringe, and the 3M patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by 3M in obtaining the patents, (ii) alleging patent infringement by 3M of a patent held by TransWeb, and (iii) alleging antitrust violations by 3M in connection with the personal respirator market. The Company has since dropped its patent infringement allegations against 3M, but continues to allege and pursue its inequitable conduct and antitrust claims. On May 24, 2012, the court tentatively set the case for trial on September 4, 2012, which the court subsequently postponed until October 29, 2012. Each side has also filed dispositive motions seeking the court to rule, as a matter, of law, that it is entitled to judgment in their respective favor in respect of one or more aspects of the case. The Company is unable to predict how or when the court will rule on these motions.

The Company acquired TransWeb on December 29, 2010 (see Note 2). Of the base purchase price, the Company withheld payment of $17,000 pending resolution of the 3M litigation, which funds may be used by the Company in connection with the same. Any litigation related amounts incurred in excess of the amount withheld will be expensed and paid by the Company. The Company currently does not anticipate total litigation related amounts to exceed the amount withheld. 3M is not seeking damages in connection with its allegations, but rather is seeking only forward-looking injunctive relief to bar TransWeb from selling products that infringe the 3M patents at issue. During the quarter and nine months ended September 1, 2012, the Company applied legal charges of $2,014 and $6,421 against the withheld payment, leaving a remaining balance of $4,250, which is included in Other accrued liabilities (see Note 7). Since the acquisition, the Company has applied legal charges of $12,750 against the withheld payment.

Other

Additionally, the Company is party to various proceedings relating to environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or other responsible state agencies have designated the Company as a potentially responsible party, along with other companies, in remedial activities for the cleanup of waste sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“the federal Superfund statute”). Although it is not certain what future environmental claims, if any, may be asserted, the Company currently believes that its potential liability for known environmental matters is not material. However, environmental and related remediation costs are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, including the number of parties involved, the difficulty in determining the nature and extent of the contamination at issue, the length of time remediation may require, the complexity of the environmental regulation and the continuing advancement of remediation technology. Applicable federal law may impose joint and several liability on each potentially responsible party for the cleanup.

In addition to the matters cited above, the Company is involved in legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records provisions with respect to identified claims or lawsuits when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims and lawsuits are reviewed quarterly and provisions are taken or adjusted to reflect the status of a particular matter.

Other Contingencies

In the event of a change in control of the Company, termination benefits are likely to be required for certain executive officers and other employees.