COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal and environmental Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State (“DEC”), with ISC Properties, Inc. Lightron Corporation (“Lightron”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon, once conducted operations at a location in Peekskill in the Town of Cortlandt, New York (the “Peekskill Site”) owned by ISC Properties, Inc. (“ISC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon. ISC sold the Peekskill Site in November 1982. Subsequently, Griffon was advised by the DEC that random sampling at the Peekskill Site and in a creek near the Peekskill Site indicated concentrations of solvents and other chemicals common to Lightron’s prior plating operations. ISC then entered into a consent order with the DEC in 1996 (the “Consent Order”) to perform a remedial investigation and prepare a feasibility study. After completing the initial remedial investigation pursuant to the Consent Order, ISC was required by the DEC, and did conduct accordingly over the next several years, supplemental remedial investigations, including soil vapor investigations, under the Consent Order. In April 2009, the DEC advised ISC’s representatives that both the DEC and the New York State Department of Health had reviewed and accepted an August 2007 Remedial Investigation Report and an Additional Data Collection Summary Report dated January 30, 2009. With the acceptance of these reports, ISC completed the remedial investigation required under the Consent Order and was authorized, accordingly, by the DEC to conduct the Feasibility Study required by the Consent Order. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Order and its obligations thereunder, ISC, without acknowledging any responsibility to perform any remediation at the Site, submitted to the DEC in August 2009, a draft feasibility study which recommended for the soil, groundwater and sediment medias, remediation alternatives having a current net capital cost value, in the aggregate, of approximately $5,000. In February 2011, the DEC advised ISC it has accepted and approved the feasibility study. Accordingly, ISC has no further obligations under the consent order. Upon acceptance of the feasibility study, the DEC issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (“PRAP”) that sets forth the proposed remedy for the site. The PRAP accepted the recommendation contained in the feasibility study for remediation of the soil and groundwater medias, but selected a different remediation alternative for the sediment medium. The approximate cost and the current net capital cost value of the remedy proposed by the DEC in the PRAP is approximately $10,000. After receiving public comments on the PRAP, the DEC issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) that set forth the specific remedies selected and responded to public comments. The remedies selected by the DEC in the ROD are the same remedies as those set forth in the PRAP. It is now expected that the DEC will enter into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to request they undertake performance of the remedies selected in the ROD, and if such parties do not agree to implement such remedies, then the State may use State Superfund money to remediate the Peekskill site and seek recovery of costs from such parties. Griffon does not acknowledge any responsibility to perform any remediation at the Peekskill Site. Improper Advertisement Claim involving Union Tools Products. Since December 2004, a customer of Ames has been named in various litigation matters relating to certain Union Tools products. The plaintiffs in those litigation matters have asserted causes of action against the customer of Ames for improper advertisement to end consumers. The allegations suggest that advertisements led the consumers to believe that Union Tools’ hand tools were wholly manufactured within boundaries of the United States. The complaints assert various causes of action against the customer of Ames under federal and state law, including common law fraud. At some point, likely once the litigation against the customer of Ames ends, the customer may seek indemnity (including recovery of its legal fees and costs) against Ames for an unspecified amount. Presently, Ames cannot estimate the amount of loss, if any, if the customer were to seek legal recourse against Ames. Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State, regarding Frankfort, NY site. During fiscal 2009, an underground fuel tank with surrounding soil contamination was discovered at the Frankfort, N.Y. site, which is the result of historical facility operations prior to Ames’ ownership. While Ames was actively working with the DEC and the New York State Department of Health to define remediation requirements relative to the underground fuel tank, the DEC took the position that Ames was responsible to remediate other types of contamination on the site. After negotiations with the DEC, on August 15, 2011, Ames executed an Order on Consent with the DEC. The Order is without admission or finding of liability or acknowledgement that there has been a release of hazardous substances at the site. Importantly, the Order does not waive any rights that Ames has under a 1991 Consent Judgment entered into between the DEC and a predecessor of Ames relating to the site. The Order requires that Ames identify Areas of Concern at the site, and formulate a strategy to investigate and remedy both on and off site conditions in compliance with applicable environmental law. At the conclusion of the remedy phase of the remediation to the satisfaction of the DEC, the DEC will issue a Certificate of Completion. On August 1, 2012, a fire occurred during the course of demolition of certain structures at the Frankfort, NY site, requiring cleanup and additional remediation under the oversight of the DEC. Demolition of the structures on the property has been substantially completed. The DEC has inspected the progress of the work and is satisfied with the results thus far. On February 12, 2013, the DEC issued comments to the Remedial Investigation Work Plan previously submitted by Ames in October 2011, and in response, Ames issued a Revised Remedial Investigation Work Plan. Completion of the remedial investigation is dependent on timing of the DEC approval; no additional comments have been provided by the DEC to date. On October 21, 2013 Ames filed its revised Remedial Investigation Report (“RIR”) with the DEC. On February 3, 2014, the DEC accepted Ames’ RIR as a draft and requested certain revisions. Ames is currently reviewing the requested revisions and will either revise the RIR as requested or negotiate alternate action acceptable to the DEC. On March 31, 2014, the DEC approved Ames Preliminary Schedule for “Additional Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Activities” (RI/FS) that identifies remedial investigations and remedial actions through to a Record of Decision. In accordance with the approved RI/FS schedule, Ames filed its work plan for Supplemental Remedial Investigation Activities with the DEC on April 3, 2014. On May 12, 2014 Ames filed a final Soil Vapor Intrusion Work Plan with DEC, which has been approved by DEC. On June 2, 2014 Ames submitted a Draft IRM Construction Completion Report to DEC. To date, DEC has not responded with approvals or comments to the Draft IRM Construction Report. U.S. Government investigations and claims Defense contracts and subcontracts, including Griffon’s contracts and subcontracts, are subject to audit and review by various agencies and instrumentalities of the United States government, including among others, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (“DCIS”), and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) which has responsibility for asserting claims on behalf of the U.S. government. In addition to ongoing audits, pursuant to subpoenas Griffon is currently providing information to the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General and the DOJ. No claim has been asserted against Griffon, and Griffon is unaware of any material financial exposure in connection with the inquiry. In general, departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have the authority to investigate various transactions and operations of Griffon, and the results of such investigations may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, the ultimate outcome of which could be fines, penalties, repayments or compensatory or treble damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges for a company or an operating division or subdivision. Suspension or debarment could have material adverse effect on Telephonics because of its reliance on government contracts. General legal Griffon is subject to various laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and is a party to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on facts presently known to it, that the resolution of the matters above and such other matters will not have a material adverse effect on Griffon’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal and environmental

Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State (“DEC”), with ISC Properties, Inc. Lightron Corporation (“Lightron”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon, once conducted operations at a location in Peekskill in the Town of Cortlandt, New York (the “Peekskill Site”) owned by ISC Properties, Inc. (“ISC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon. ISC sold the Peekskill Site in November 1982.

Subsequently, Griffon was advised by the DEC that random sampling at the Peekskill Site and in a creek near the Peekskill Site indicated concentrations of solvents and other chemicals common to Lightron’s prior plating operations. ISC then entered into a consent order with the DEC in 1996 (the “Consent Order”) to perform a remedial investigation and prepare a feasibility study. After completing the initial remedial investigation pursuant to the Consent Order, ISC was required by the DEC, and did conduct accordingly over the next several years, supplemental remedial investigations, including soil vapor investigations, under the Consent Order.

In April 2009, the DEC advised ISC’s representatives that both the DEC and the New York State Department of Health had reviewed and accepted an August 2007 Remedial Investigation Report and an Additional Data Collection Summary Report dated January 30, 2009. With the acceptance of these reports, ISC completed the remedial investigation required under the Consent Order and was authorized, accordingly, by the DEC to conduct the Feasibility Study required by the Consent Order. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Order and its obligations thereunder, ISC, without acknowledging any responsibility to perform any remediation at the Site, submitted to the DEC in August 2009, a draft feasibility study which recommended for the soil, groundwater and sediment medias, remediation alternatives having a current net capital cost value, in the aggregate, of approximately $5,000. In February 2011, the DEC advised ISC it has accepted and approved the feasibility study. Accordingly, ISC has no further obligations under the consent order.

Upon acceptance of the feasibility study, the DEC issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (“PRAP”) that sets forth the proposed remedy for the site. The PRAP accepted the recommendation contained in the feasibility study for remediation of the soil and groundwater medias, but selected a different remediation alternative for the sediment medium. The approximate cost and the current net capital cost value of the remedy proposed by the DEC in the PRAP is approximately $10,000. After receiving public comments on the PRAP, the DEC issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) that set forth the specific remedies selected and responded to public comments. The remedies selected by the DEC in the ROD are the same remedies as those set forth in the PRAP.

It is now expected that the DEC will enter into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to request they undertake performance of the remedies selected in the ROD, and if such parties do not agree to implement such remedies, then the State may use State Superfund money to remediate the Peekskill site and seek recovery of costs from such parties. Griffon does not acknowledge any responsibility to perform any remediation at the Peekskill Site.

Improper Advertisement Claim involving Union Tools Products. Since December 2004, a customer of Ames has been named in various litigation matters relating to certain Union Tools products. The plaintiffs in those litigation matters have asserted causes of action against the customer of Ames for improper advertisement to end consumers. The allegations suggest that advertisements led the consumers to believe that Union Tools’ hand tools were wholly manufactured within boundaries of the United States. The complaints assert various causes of action against the customer of Ames under federal and state law, including common law fraud. At some point, likely once the litigation against the customer of Ames ends, the customer may seek indemnity (including recovery of its legal fees and costs) against Ames for an unspecified amount. Presently, Ames cannot estimate the amount of loss, if any, if the customer were to seek legal recourse against Ames.

Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State, regarding Frankfort, NY site. During fiscal 2009, an underground fuel tank with surrounding soil contamination was discovered at the Frankfort, N.Y. site, which is the result of historical facility operations prior to Ames’ ownership. While Ames was actively working with the DEC and the New York State Department of Health to define remediation requirements relative to the underground fuel tank, the DEC took the position that Ames was responsible to remediate other types of contamination on the site. After negotiations with the DEC, on August 15, 2011, Ames executed an Order on Consent with the DEC. The Order is without admission or finding of liability or acknowledgement that there has been a release of hazardous substances at the site. Importantly, the Order does not waive any rights that Ames has under a 1991 Consent Judgment entered into between the DEC and a predecessor of Ames relating to the site. The Order requires that Ames identify Areas of Concern at the site, and formulate a strategy to investigate and remedy both on and off site conditions in compliance with applicable environmental law. At the conclusion of the remedy phase of the remediation to the satisfaction of the DEC, the DEC will issue a Certificate of Completion. On August 1, 2012, a fire occurred during the course of demolition of certain structures at the Frankfort, NY site, requiring cleanup and additional remediation under the oversight of the DEC. Demolition of the structures on the property has been substantially completed. The DEC has inspected the progress of the work and is satisfied with the results thus far. On February 12, 2013, the DEC issued comments to the Remedial Investigation Work Plan previously submitted by Ames in October 2011, and in response, Ames issued a Revised Remedial Investigation Work Plan. Completion of the remedial investigation is dependent on timing of the DEC approval; no additional comments have been provided by the DEC to date. On October 21, 2013 Ames filed its revised Remedial Investigation Report (“RIR”) with the DEC. On February 3, 2014, the DEC accepted Ames’ RIR as a draft and requested certain revisions. Ames is currently reviewing the requested revisions and will either revise the RIR as requested or negotiate alternate action acceptable to the DEC. On March 31, 2014, the DEC approved Ames Preliminary Schedule for “Additional Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Activities” (RI/FS) that identifies remedial investigations and remedial actions through to a Record of Decision. In accordance with the approved RI/FS schedule, Ames filed its work plan for Supplemental Remedial Investigation Activities with the DEC on April 3, 2014. On May 12, 2014 Ames filed a final Soil Vapor Intrusion Work Plan with DEC, which has been approved by DEC. On June 2, 2014 Ames submitted a Draft IRM Construction Completion Report to DEC. To date, DEC has not responded with approvals or comments to the Draft IRM Construction Report.

U.S. Government investigations and claims

Defense contracts and subcontracts, including Griffon’s contracts and subcontracts, are subject to audit and review by various agencies and instrumentalities of the United States government, including among others, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (“DCIS”), and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) which has responsibility for asserting claims on behalf of the U.S. government. In addition to ongoing audits, pursuant to subpoenas Griffon is currently providing information to the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General and the DOJ. No claim has been asserted against Griffon, and Griffon is unaware of any material financial exposure in connection with the inquiry.

In general, departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have the authority to investigate various transactions and operations of Griffon, and the results of such investigations may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, the ultimate outcome of which could be fines, penalties, repayments or compensatory or treble damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges for a company or an operating division or subdivision. Suspension or debarment could have material adverse effect on Telephonics because of its reliance on government contracts.

General legal

Griffon is subject to various laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and is a party to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on facts presently known to it, that the resolution of the matters above and such other matters will not have a material adverse effect on Griffon’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.