Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 29, 2012
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies [Text Block]	Contingencies We are party to a number of lawsuits, threatened lawsuits and other claims arising out of the normal course of business. With respect to all such matters, we record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In addition, narrative information is provided for matters as to which management believes a material loss is reasonably possible. Management has assessed all such matters, including those described below, based on current information and made a judgment concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the probability of success. Management's judgment is made subject to the known uncertainty of litigation and management's judgment as to estimates made may prove materially different from actual results. Ely v. Davey Tree Surgery Company--Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company, was named as a defendant in Peter Ely et al. v. Davey Tree Surgery Company et al., a purported class-action lawsuit in the State of California filed on July 15, 2008 in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative class that Davey Tree Surgery Company failed to comply with California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required content of paycheck stubs. The plaintiffs alleged that they and the putative "meal periods" class were not provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute meal periods. In addition, plaintiffs claimed that because they were allegedly required to work during their meal breaks, Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum wage for their alleged work during meal breaks. Plaintiffs also contended that Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not including the time that they and the putative "wage statement" class members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of pay and the number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their paycheck stubs. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements" class; some individuals were members of both classes, while others were members of only one class (collectively, the "class members"). A trial was initially scheduled for January 30, 2012 and was rescheduled to March 26, 2012, pending results of a mediation process initiated in January 2012 with plaintiffs and Local Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the "Union"). As a result of the mediation, on January 6, 2012, Davey Tree Surgery Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs, counsel for the class members, and the Union representing the class members. The Settlement Agreement required court approval of its terms. The Court, in April 2012, granted preliminary approval and granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement in August 2012. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, during August 2012, the Company paid $2,900 that was previously recorded in the fourth quarter 2011. M. Contingencies (continued) California Fire Litigation: San Diego County--Davey Tree Surgery Company, a Davey subsidiary, and Davey Resource Group, a Davey division, along with the Company have previously been sued, together with a utility services customer, San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"), and its parent company, as defendants, and as cross-defendants in cross-complaints filed by SDG&E, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego, arising out of a wildfire in San Diego County that started on October 22, 2007, referred to as the Rice Canyon fire. Numerous lawsuits related to the Rice Canyon fire were filed against SDG&E, its parent company, Sempra Energy, and Davey. The earliest of the lawsuits naming Davey was filed on April 18, 2008. The Court ordered that the lawsuits be organized into four groups based on type of plaintiff, namely insurance subrogation claimants, individual/business claimants, governmental claimants, and plaintiffs seeking class certification. Plaintiffs' motions seeking class certification were denied and the orders denying class certification were affirmed on appeal. SDG&E filed cross-complaints against Davey for contractual indemnity, declaratory relief, and breach of contract. SDG&E has reportedly settled many of the third-party claims and asserted its claims against Davey for indemnity. Davey previously notified its insurers of the Rice Canyon fire claims (collectively the “Davey Insurers”), vigorously defended the third-party claims, and worked with the Davey Insurers both to defend the claims and to ensure coverage of any potential liabilities. During the third quarter 2012, Davey entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Agreement”) among Davey, SDG&E and Davey Insurers. Under the Agreement (a) Davey paid SDG&E an amount previously expensed and accrued as self-insurance, (b) the Davey Insurers paid SDG&E amounts under Davey's insurance policies in effect during the period of the Rice Canyon fire, and (c) SDG&E agreed to defend and hold harmless Davey from any and all claims that are currently asserted against Davey.

Contingencies

We are party to a number of lawsuits, threatened lawsuits and other claims arising out of the normal course of business.

With respect to all such matters, we record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In addition, narrative information is provided for matters as to which management believes a material loss is reasonably possible.

Management has assessed all such matters, including those described below, based on current information and made a judgment concerning their potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the probability of success. Management's judgment is made subject to the known uncertainty of litigation and management's judgment as to estimates made may prove materially different from actual results.

Ely v. Davey Tree Surgery Company--Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company, was named as a defendant in Peter Ely et al. v. Davey Tree Surgery Company et al., a purported class-action lawsuit in the State of California filed on July 15, 2008 in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative class that Davey Tree Surgery Company failed to comply with California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required content of paycheck stubs.

The plaintiffs alleged that they and the putative "meal periods" class were not provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute meal periods. In addition, plaintiffs claimed that because they were allegedly required to work during their meal breaks, Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum wage for their alleged work during meal breaks. Plaintiffs also contended that Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not including the time that they and the putative "wage statement" class members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of pay and the number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their paycheck stubs.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements" class; some individuals were members of both classes, while others were members of only one class (collectively, the "class members"). A trial was initially scheduled for January 30, 2012 and was rescheduled to March 26, 2012, pending results of a mediation process initiated in January 2012 with plaintiffs and Local Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the "Union").

As a result of the mediation, on January 6, 2012, Davey Tree Surgery Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") with the plaintiffs, counsel for the class members, and the Union representing the class members.

The Settlement Agreement required court approval of its terms. The Court, in April 2012, granted preliminary approval and granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement in August 2012. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, during August 2012, the Company paid $2,900 that was previously recorded in the fourth quarter 2011.

M. Contingencies (continued)

California Fire Litigation: San Diego County--Davey Tree Surgery Company, a Davey subsidiary, and Davey Resource Group, a Davey division, along with the Company have previously been sued, together with a utility services customer, San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E"), and its parent company, as defendants, and as cross-defendants in cross-complaints filed by SDG&E, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego, arising out of a wildfire in San Diego County that started on October 22, 2007, referred to as the Rice Canyon fire.

Numerous lawsuits related to the Rice Canyon fire were filed against SDG&E, its parent company, Sempra Energy, and Davey. The earliest of the lawsuits naming Davey was filed on April 18, 2008. The Court ordered that the lawsuits be organized into four groups based on type of plaintiff, namely insurance subrogation claimants, individual/business claimants, governmental claimants, and plaintiffs seeking class certification. Plaintiffs' motions seeking class certification were denied and the orders denying class certification were affirmed on appeal. SDG&E filed cross-complaints against Davey for contractual indemnity, declaratory relief, and breach of contract. SDG&E has reportedly settled many of the third-party claims and asserted its claims against Davey for indemnity.

Davey previously notified its insurers of the Rice Canyon fire claims (collectively the “Davey Insurers”), vigorously defended the third-party claims, and worked with the Davey Insurers both to defend the claims and to ensure coverage of any potential liabilities.

During the third quarter 2012, Davey entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Agreement”) among Davey, SDG&E and Davey Insurers.

Under the Agreement (a) Davey paid SDG&E an amount previously expensed and accrued as self-insurance, (b) the Davey Insurers paid SDG&E amounts under Davey's insurance policies in effect during the period of the Rice Canyon fire, and (c) SDG&E agreed to defend and hold harmless Davey from any and all claims that are currently asserted against Davey.