Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 28, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company is involved from time to time in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which, individually or in the aggregate, after giving effect to its existing insurance coverage, is expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. From time to time, the Company is also involved in proceedings and potential proceedings relating to environmental, product liability and other matters, the claims of which are administered by the Company in the ordinary course of business. The Company maintains pollution and remediation insurance, as well as product liability insurance to provide coverage for these types of claims. Although it is difficult to estimate the Company’s potential exposure to these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Environmental Claims The Woodbridge, New Jersey facility is currently the subject of an investigation and/or remediation before the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under ISRA Case No. E20030110 for the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Gentek Building Products, Inc. (“Gentek”). The facility is currently leased by Gentek. Previous operations at the facility resulted in soil and groundwater contamination in certain areas of the property. In 1999, the property owner and Gentek signed a remediation agreement with NJDEP, pursuant to which the property owner and Gentek agreed to continue an investigation/remediation that had been commenced pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement with NJDEP. Under the remediation agreement, NJDEP required posting of a remediation funding source of $0.1 million that was provided by Gentek under a self-guarantee as of December 31, 2011. In March 2012, the self-guarantee was replaced by a $0.2 million standby letter of credit provided to the NJDEP, which was increased to $0.3 million in May 2013. During 2014, the Company completed the delineation studies and in early 2015 was presented with several remedial plans. Based on the alternatives presented, the Company identified what it believed to be the most likely option and recorded the minimum liability for that option, which totaled $1.0 million as of January 3, 2015. The Company believes this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Product Liability Claims On September 20, 2010, the Company and Gentek were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned Donald Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al (the “Eliason complaint”). The complaint was filed by a number of individual plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel and aluminum siding products manufactured by the Company and Gentek or their predecessors. The plaintiffs asserted a breach of express and implied warranty, along with related causes of action, claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to peel off the metal and that the Company and Gentek failed adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace or refinish the defective siding. Plaintiffs sought unspecified actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful practices, together with attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The Eliason complaint was refiled in the Northern District of Ohio and subsequently consolidated with a number of other then-pending actions. On February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement”) with the named plaintiffs. A preliminary approval hearing was held by the Court on March 4, 2013, and the Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 5, 2013. On August 1, 2013, following a fairness hearing, the Court issued a final judgment and order approving the Settlement (“Final Judgment and Order”). The Settlement became effective on September 2, 2013 when the time period for appealing the Final Judgment and Order ended. The Settlement provides for the certification of a class for settlement purposes only of commercial and residential property owners who purchased steel siding manufactured and warranted by the Company during the period January 1, 1991 to March 15, 2013 (the date on which notice of the Settlement was first sent to settlement class members) and whose siding allegedly experienced “Steel Peel,” which is characterized for the purposes of settlement by the separation of any layer of the finish on the steel siding from the steel siding itself. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement, the Company has agreed that (1) the first time an eligible settlement class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for siding, the Company will, at its option, repair or replace the siding or, at such class member’s option, make a cash settlement payment to such class member equal to the cost to the Company of the repair or replacement option selected by the Company; (2) the second time such class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for the same siding, the same options will be available; and (3) the third time such a claim is submitted, such class member may elect to have the Company either refinish or replace the siding or may elect to receive a one-time $8,000 payment. If the $8,000 payment option is chosen, the Company will have no further obligation to such class member in connection with the warranty. Under the Settlement, the Company agreed to pay the sum of $2.5 million to compensate class counsel for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the lawsuit. The Company also paid $0.6 million associated with executing the notice provisions of the Settlement. The Company recognized settlement costs related to the attorneys’ fees and notice costs as of December 29, 2012. The Company expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement; however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs have been or will be material.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is involved from time to time in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which, individually or in the aggregate, after giving effect to its existing insurance coverage, is expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

From time to time, the Company is also involved in proceedings and potential proceedings relating to environmental, product liability and other matters, the claims of which are administered by the Company in the ordinary course of business. The Company maintains pollution and remediation insurance, as well as product liability insurance to provide coverage for these types of claims. Although it is difficult to estimate the Company’s potential exposure to these matters, the Company believes that the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Environmental Claims

The Woodbridge, New Jersey facility is currently the subject of an investigation and/or remediation before the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under ISRA Case No. E20030110 for the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Gentek Building Products, Inc. (“Gentek”). The facility is currently leased by Gentek. Previous operations at the facility resulted in soil and groundwater contamination in certain areas of the property. In 1999, the property owner and Gentek signed a remediation agreement with NJDEP, pursuant to which the property owner and Gentek agreed to continue an investigation/remediation that had been commenced pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement with NJDEP. Under the remediation agreement, NJDEP required posting of a remediation funding source of $0.1 million that was provided by Gentek under a self-guarantee as of December 31, 2011. In March 2012, the self-guarantee was replaced by a $0.2 million standby letter of credit provided to the NJDEP, which was increased to $0.3 million in May 2013. During 2014, the Company completed the delineation studies and in early 2015 was presented with several remedial plans. Based on the alternatives presented, the Company identified what it believed to be the most likely option and recorded the minimum liability for that option, which totaled $1.0 million as of January 3, 2015. The Company believes this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Product Liability Claims

On September 20, 2010, the Company and Gentek were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, captioned Donald Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al (the “Eliason complaint”). The complaint was filed by a number of individual plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of owners of steel and aluminum siding products manufactured by the Company and Gentek or their predecessors. The plaintiffs asserted a breach of express and implied warranty, along with related causes of action, claiming that an unspecified defect in the siding causes paint to peel off the metal and that the Company and Gentek failed adequately to honor their warranty obligations to repair, replace or refinish the defective siding. Plaintiffs sought unspecified actual and punitive damages, restitution of monies paid to the defendants and an injunction against the claimed unlawful practices, together with attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. The Eliason complaint was refiled in the Northern District of Ohio and subsequently consolidated with a number of other then-pending actions.

On February 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement”) with the named plaintiffs. A preliminary approval hearing was held by the Court on March 4, 2013, and the Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 5, 2013. On August 1, 2013, following a fairness hearing, the Court issued a final judgment and order approving the Settlement (“Final Judgment and Order”). The Settlement became effective on September 2, 2013 when the time period for appealing the Final Judgment and Order ended.

The Settlement provides for the certification of a class for settlement purposes only of commercial and residential property owners who purchased steel siding manufactured and warranted by the Company during the period January 1, 1991 to March 15, 2013 (the date on which notice of the Settlement was first sent to settlement class members) and whose siding allegedly experienced “Steel Peel,” which is characterized for the purposes of settlement by the separation of any layer of the finish on the steel siding from the steel siding itself. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement, the Company has agreed that (1) the first time an eligible settlement class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for siding, the Company will, at its option, repair or replace the siding or, at such class member’s option, make a cash settlement payment to such class member equal to the cost to the Company of the repair or replacement option selected by the Company; (2) the second time such class member submits a valid Steel Peel warranty claim for the same siding, the same options will be available; and (3) the third time such a claim is submitted, such class member may elect to have the Company either refinish or replace the siding or may elect to receive a one-time $8,000 payment. If the $8,000 payment option is chosen, the Company will have no further obligation to such class member in connection with the warranty.

Under the Settlement, the Company agreed to pay the sum of $2.5 million to compensate class counsel for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the lawsuit. The Company also paid $0.6 million associated with executing the notice provisions of the Settlement. The Company recognized settlement costs related to the attorneys’ fees and notice costs as of December 29, 2012. The Company expects to incur additional warranty costs associated with the Settlement; however, the Company does not believe the incremental costs have been or will be material.