Contingencies and Commitments	12 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2014
Contingencies and Commitments	Contingencies and Commitments Contingent Liabilities The company is a party to various pending legal proceedings, claims and environmental actions by government agencies. The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can reasonably be estimated. Any provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and are adjusted to reflect the impact and status of settlements, rulings, advice of counsel and other information pertinent to the particular matter. Aris This is a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint alleges unfair labor practices due to the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc. (Aris), a former subsidiary of the company. The complaint names the company as a party defendant. In 2006, the arbitrator ruled against the company and awarded the plaintiffs approximately $80 million in damages and fees. This ruling was appealed by the company and subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Both the complainants and the company have filed motions for reconsideration. The company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit; however, it is reasonably possible that this case will be ruled against the company and have a material adverse impact on the company's results of operations and cash flows. The company has initiated settlement discussions for this case and has established an accrual for the estimated settlement amount. Multi-Employer Pension Plans The company participates in one multi-employer pension plan that provides retirement benefits to certain employees covered by collective bargaining agreements (the MEPP). Participating employers in the MEPP are jointly responsible for any plan underfunding. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) imposes minimum funding requirements on pension plans. Multi-employer pension plans that fail to meet certain funding standards (as defined by the PPA) are categorized as being either in critical or endangered status. The MEPP was certified by its actuary to be in critical status for the 2012 plan year; consequently, the trustees of the MEPP adopted a rehabilitation plan designed to improve the plan's funding within a prescribed period of time. The rehabilitation plan included increases in employer contributions and reductions in benefits. Unless otherwise agreed upon, any requirement to increase employer contributions will not take effect until the current collective bargaining agreements expire. However, a five percent surcharge for the initial critical year (increasing to ten percent for subsequent years) is imposed on contributions to the MEPP under the current collective bargaining agreement. Such surcharge remains in effect until the effective date of an adopted collective bargaining agreement which includes modifications consistent with the rehabilitation plan. Any surcharge assessed on an employer will also be included in the calculation of the compounded contribution rate increases required under the rehabilitation plan. In addition, the failure of the MEPP to meet funding improvement targets provided in its rehabilitation plan could result in the imposition of an excise tax on contributing employers. Under the current law regarding multi-employer pension plans, a withdrawal or partial withdrawal from any multi-employer pension plan that was underfunded would render a withdrawing employer liable for its proportionate share of that underfunding. Such withdrawing employer is required to pay, in annual installment payments, a statutorily determined amount to satisfy the withdrawal liability. The annual installment payments for a complete withdrawal are capped at twenty years, except in the case of a mass withdrawal. In a mass withdrawal, the twenty-year payment cap does not apply. This potential unfunded pension liability also applies ratably to other contributing employers. Information regarding underfunding is generally not provided by plan administrators and trustees on a current basis and when provided, is difficult to independently validate. Any public information available relative to multi-employer pension plans may be dated as well. In the event a withdrawal or partial withdrawal was to occur with respect to the MEPP, the impact to the company's consolidated financial statements could be material. Withdrawal liability triggers could include the company's decision to close a plant or the dissolution of a collective bargaining unit. The company's regularly scheduled contributions to the MEPPs related to continuing operations totaled approximately $1 million in 2014, $1 million in 2013 and $2 million in 2012. Plant Shutdown During March 2014, a fire occurred at the company's turkey processing facility in Iowa. The fire caused significant damage to both the plant and equipment and resulted in a shutdown in production. The company currently estimates the facility will resume production within 9-12 months from the date of the fire. The company is presently maintaining pre-fire production volumes through the use of alternate processors while the facility is under repair and anticipates it will continue to do so until production resumes. The company maintains insurance to cover such incidents with limits it believes are sufficient to reimburse the company for its expected provable losses, subject to a $1.0 million deductible. During the year ended June 28, 2014, the company incurred $35 million in incremental costs related to the plant shutdown of which $31 million and $4 million are reported in Cost of sales and Selling, general, and administrative expenses, respectively, in the Consolidated Statements of Income. During the year ended June 28, 2014, the company received $50 million of insurance proceeds to cover the cost of reconstructing the damaged portion of the facility and replacing equipment that was destroyed in the fire. A gain of approximately $45 million was recorded on the involuntary conversion of those assets and is reported in Cost of sales in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Insurance proceeds attributable to the property and equipment destroyed in the fire are reported in investing activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Guarantees The company is a party to a variety of agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify a third party with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise as a result of contracts entered into by the company under which the company agrees to indemnify a third party against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to matters such as title to assets sold, the collectibility of receivables, specified environmental matters, lease obligations assumed and certain tax matters. In each of these circumstances, payment by the company is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the contract. These procedures allow the company to challenge the other party's claims. In addition, the company's obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some cases the company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by the company. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under certain of these agreements, due to the conditional nature of the company's obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the company under these agreements have not had a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations. The company believes that if it were to incur a loss in any of these matters, such loss would not have a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations. The material guarantees for which the maximum potential amount of future payments can be determined, are as follows: Contingent Lease Obligations The company is contingently liable for leases on property operated by others. At June 28, 2014, the maximum potential amount of future payments the company could be required to make if all of the current operators default on the rental arrangements is $9 million. The minimum annual rentals under these leases are $8 million in 2015 and $1 million in 2016. The largest components of these amounts relate to a number of retail store leases assumed by Coach, Inc. Coach, Inc. has issued a guarantee to the company and agreed to indemnify and reimburse the company from and against any payments or performance that may be required with respect to any obligation or liability imposed under the retail store leases. The company has not recognized a liability for the contingent obligation on the Coach, Inc. leases it assumed. Contingent Debt Obligations and Other The company has guaranteed the payment of certain third-party debt. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the company could be required to make, in the event that these third parties default on their debt obligations, is $15 million. At the present time, the company does not believe it is probable that any of these third parties will default on the amount subject to guarantee.

Contingencies and Commitments

Contingent Liabilities

The company is a party to various pending legal proceedings, claims and environmental actions by government agencies. The company records a provision with respect to a claim, suit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can reasonably be estimated. Any provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and are adjusted to reflect the impact and status of settlements, rulings, advice of counsel and other information pertinent to the particular matter.

Aris This is a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint alleges unfair labor practices due to the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc. (Aris), a former subsidiary of the company. The complaint names the company as a party defendant. In 2006, the arbitrator ruled against the company and awarded the plaintiffs approximately $80 million in damages and fees. This ruling was appealed by the company and subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Both the complainants and the company have filed motions for reconsideration. The company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit; however, it is reasonably possible that this case will be ruled against the company and have a material adverse impact on the company's results of operations and cash flows. The company has initiated settlement discussions for this case and has established an accrual for the estimated settlement amount.

Multi-Employer Pension Plans The company participates in one multi-employer pension plan that provides retirement benefits to certain employees covered by collective bargaining agreements (the MEPP). Participating employers in the MEPP are jointly responsible for any plan underfunding. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) imposes minimum funding requirements on pension plans. Multi-employer pension plans that fail to meet certain funding standards (as defined by the PPA) are categorized as being either in critical or endangered status. The MEPP was certified by its actuary to be in critical status for the 2012 plan year; consequently, the trustees of the MEPP adopted a rehabilitation plan designed to improve the plan's funding within a prescribed period of time. The rehabilitation plan included increases in employer contributions and reductions in benefits. Unless otherwise agreed upon, any requirement to increase employer contributions will not take effect until the current collective bargaining agreements expire. However, a five percent surcharge for the initial critical year (increasing to ten percent for subsequent years) is imposed on contributions to the MEPP under the current collective bargaining agreement. Such surcharge remains in effect until the effective date of an adopted collective bargaining agreement which includes modifications consistent with the rehabilitation plan. Any surcharge assessed on an employer will also be included in the calculation of the compounded contribution rate increases required under the rehabilitation plan. In addition, the failure of the MEPP to meet funding improvement targets provided in its rehabilitation plan could result in the imposition of an excise tax on contributing employers.

Under the current law regarding multi-employer pension plans, a withdrawal or partial withdrawal from any multi-employer pension plan that was underfunded would render a withdrawing employer liable for its proportionate share of that underfunding. Such withdrawing employer is required to pay, in annual installment payments, a statutorily determined amount to satisfy the withdrawal liability. The annual installment payments for a complete withdrawal are capped at twenty years, except in the case of a mass withdrawal. In a mass withdrawal, the twenty-year payment cap does not apply. This potential unfunded pension liability also applies ratably to other contributing employers. Information regarding underfunding is generally not provided by plan administrators and trustees on a current basis and when provided, is difficult to independently validate. Any public information available relative to multi-employer pension plans may be dated as well. In the event a withdrawal or partial withdrawal was to occur with respect to the MEPP, the impact to the company's consolidated financial statements could be material. Withdrawal liability triggers could include the company's decision to close a plant or the dissolution of a collective bargaining unit.

The company's regularly scheduled contributions to the MEPPs related to continuing operations totaled approximately $1 million in 2014, $1 million in 2013 and $2 million in 2012.

Plant Shutdown During March 2014, a fire occurred at the company's turkey processing facility in Iowa. The fire caused significant damage to both the plant and equipment and resulted in a shutdown in production. The company currently estimates the facility will resume production within 9-12 months from the date of the fire. The company is presently maintaining pre-fire production volumes through the use of alternate processors while the facility is under repair and anticipates it will continue to do so until production resumes. The company maintains insurance to cover such incidents with limits it believes are sufficient to reimburse the company for its expected provable losses, subject to a $1.0 million deductible. During the year ended June 28, 2014, the company incurred $35 million in incremental costs related to the plant shutdown of which $31 million and $4 million are reported in Cost of sales and Selling, general, and administrative expenses, respectively, in the Consolidated Statements of Income. During the year ended June 28, 2014, the company received $50 million of insurance proceeds to cover the cost of reconstructing the damaged portion of the facility and replacing equipment that was destroyed in the fire. A gain of approximately $45 million was recorded on the involuntary conversion of those assets and is reported in Cost of sales in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Insurance proceeds attributable to the property and equipment destroyed in the fire are reported in investing activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

Guarantees

The company is a party to a variety of agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify a third party with respect to certain matters. Typically, these obligations arise as a result of contracts entered into by the company under which the company agrees to indemnify a third party against losses arising from a breach of representations and covenants related to matters such as title to assets sold, the collectibility of receivables, specified environmental matters, lease obligations assumed and certain tax matters. In each of these circumstances, payment by the company is conditioned on the other party making a claim pursuant to the procedures specified in the contract. These procedures allow the company to challenge the other party's claims. In addition, the company's obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time and/or amount, and in some cases the company may have recourse against third parties for certain payments made by the company. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under certain of these agreements, due to the conditional nature of the company's obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the company under these agreements have not had a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations. The company believes that if it were to incur a loss in any of these matters, such loss would not have a material effect on the company's business, financial condition or results of operations.

The material guarantees for which the maximum potential amount of future payments can be determined, are as follows:

Contingent Lease Obligations The company is contingently liable for leases on property operated by others. At June 28, 2014, the maximum potential amount of future payments the company could be required to make if all of the current operators default on the rental arrangements is $9 million. The minimum annual rentals under these leases are $8 million in 2015 and $1 million in 2016. The largest components of these amounts relate to a number of retail store leases assumed by Coach, Inc. Coach, Inc. has issued a guarantee to the company and agreed to indemnify and reimburse the company from and against any payments or performance that may be required with respect to any obligation or liability imposed under the retail store leases. The company has not recognized a liability for the contingent obligation on the Coach, Inc. leases it assumed.

Contingent Debt Obligations and Other The company has guaranteed the payment of certain third-party debt. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the company could be required to make, in the event that these third parties default on their debt obligations, is $15 million. At the present time, the company does not believe it is probable that any of these third parties will default on the amount subject to guarantee.