Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	9. Commitments and Contingencies In July 2001, the Company received a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the “NYSDEC”) advising the Company that it is a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to environmental contamination at, and alleged migration from, property located in Gowanda, New York which was sold by the Company to Gowanda Electronics Corporation prior to 1980. In March 2001, the NYSDEC issued a Record of Decision with respect to the Gowanda site in which it set forth a remedy including continued operation of an existing extraction well and air stripper, installation of groundwater pumping wells and a collection trench, construction of a treatment system in a separate building on the site, installation of a reactive iron wall covering 250 linear feet, which is intended to intercept any contaminates and implementation of an on-going monitoring system. The NYSDEC has estimated that its selected remediation plan will cost approximately $688,000 for initial construction and a total of $1,997,000 with respect to expected operation and maintenance expenses over a 30-year period after completion of initial construction. The Company has not conceded to the NYSDEC that the Company is liable with respect to this matter and has not agreed with the NYSDEC that the remediation plan selected by NYSDEC is the most appropriate plan. This matter has not been litigated, and at the present time the Company has only been identified as a PRP. The Company also believes that other parties may have been identified by the NYSDEC as PRPs, and the allocation of financial responsibility of such parties has not been litigated. To the Company’s knowledge, the NYSDEC has not commenced implementation of the remediation plan and has not indicated when construction will start, if ever. Based upon currently available information, the Company is unable to estimate timing with respect to the resolution of this matter. The Company’s primary insurance carrier has assumed the cost of the Company’s defense in this matter, subject to a reservation of rights. Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through the date of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in approximately 239 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have been produced that indicate the Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall panels that contained asbestos and were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company’s insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in approximately 37 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company’s insurance carrier. Further, over 174 cases have been terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of unresolved cases against the Company as of December 31, 2013, the most recent date for which information is available, is approximately 28 cases. While the Company cannot estimate potential damages or predict what the ultimate resolution of these asbestos cases may be because the discovery proceedings on the cases are not complete, based upon the Company’s experience to date with similar cases, as well as the assumption that insurance coverage will continue to be provided with respect to these cases, at the present time, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these cases will have a significant adverse impact on the Company’s operations or financial condition. In February 2013, a customer brought legal action against the Company alleging the Company defaulted on its obligations and failed to perform pursuant to the terms of a written agreement entered into with the Company in February 2012. In April 2013, the customer and the Company agreed to a settlement of the customer’s claims pursuant to which the Company paid the customer an aggregate amount of $30,000. At March 31, 2013, the Company recorded expense of $30,000 related to this settlement. In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a legal action brought by a competitor (which was also a former customer and supplier) who alleged that the Company and certain other third-party defendants profited improperly from the use of intellectual property developed by such competitor. The Company believed the asserted claims were without merit and that its chances of prevailing without material liability were high. However, due largely to the increasing costs of the ongoing litigation, the Company and the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement effective as of June 12, 2013. Under the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay all outstanding invoices due to the plaintiff from the Company as of the date of the settlement, net of existing amounts due to the Company from the plaintiff, and further to pay license, service and other fees to the plaintiff in return for the plaintiff’s providing maintenance services on lockers distributed to certain of the Company’s customers. At March 31, 2013, the Company recorded an expense of approximately $412,000 related to the settlement, with approximately $377,000 recorded as accrued settlement and approximately $35,000 included in other accrued expenses. The Company was to pay amounts due to the plaintiff under the terms of the settlement agreement over a minimum period of 29 months which began June 1, 2013. In connection with an asset purchase agreement the Company entered into with the plaintiff on February 14, 2014 (see Note 2), the settlement agreement was amended such that, effective as of that date, the Company is no longer required to make monthly settlement payments and will pay only maintenance fees to the plaintiff on a monthly basis over the remainder of the 29-month period which began June 1, 2013. The Company is involved in other claims and litigation from time to time in the normal course of business. The Company does not believe these matters will have a significant adverse impact on the Company’s operations or financial condition.

Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

9. Commitments and Contingencies

In July 2001, the Company received a letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the “NYSDEC”) advising the Company that it is a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to environmental contamination at, and alleged migration from, property located in Gowanda, New York which was sold by the Company to Gowanda Electronics Corporation prior to 1980. In March 2001, the NYSDEC issued a Record of Decision with respect to the Gowanda site in which it set forth a remedy including continued operation of an existing extraction well and air stripper, installation of groundwater pumping wells and a collection trench, construction of a treatment system in a separate building on the site, installation of a reactive iron wall covering 250 linear feet, which is intended to intercept any contaminates and implementation of an on-going monitoring system. The NYSDEC has estimated that its selected remediation plan will cost approximately $688,000 for initial construction and a total of $1,997,000 with respect to expected operation and maintenance expenses over a 30-year period after completion of initial construction. The Company has not conceded to the NYSDEC that the Company is liable with respect to this matter and has not agreed with the NYSDEC that the remediation plan selected by NYSDEC is the most appropriate plan. This matter has not been litigated, and at the present time the Company has only been identified as a PRP. The Company also believes that other parties may have been identified by the NYSDEC as PRPs, and the allocation of financial responsibility of such parties has not been litigated. To the Company’s knowledge, the NYSDEC has not commenced implementation of the remediation plan and has not indicated when construction will start, if ever. Based upon currently available information, the Company is unable to estimate timing with respect to the resolution of this matter. The Company’s primary insurance carrier has assumed the cost of the Company’s defense in this matter, subject to a reservation of rights.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through the date of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in approximately 239 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have been produced that indicate the Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall panels that contained asbestos and were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company’s insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in approximately 37 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company’s insurance carrier. Further, over 174 cases have been terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of unresolved cases against the Company as of December 31, 2013, the most recent date for which information is available, is approximately 28 cases. While the Company cannot estimate potential damages or predict what the ultimate resolution of these asbestos cases may be because the discovery proceedings on the cases are not complete, based upon the Company’s experience to date with similar cases, as well as the assumption that insurance coverage will continue to be provided with respect to these cases, at the present time, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these cases will have a significant adverse impact on the Company’s operations or financial condition.

In February 2013, a customer brought legal action against the Company alleging the Company defaulted on its obligations and failed to perform pursuant to the terms of a written agreement entered into with the Company in February 2012. In April 2013, the customer and the Company agreed to a settlement of the customer’s claims pursuant to which the Company paid the customer an aggregate amount of $30,000. At March 31, 2013, the Company recorded expense of $30,000 related to this settlement.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a legal action brought by a competitor (which was also a former customer and supplier) who alleged that the Company and certain other third-party defendants profited improperly from the use of intellectual property developed by such competitor. The Company believed the asserted claims were without merit and that its chances of prevailing without material liability were high. However, due largely to the increasing costs of the ongoing litigation, the Company and the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement effective as of June 12, 2013. Under the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay all outstanding invoices due to the plaintiff from the Company as of the date of the settlement, net of existing amounts due to the Company from the plaintiff, and further to pay license, service and other fees to the plaintiff in return for the plaintiff’s providing maintenance services on lockers distributed to certain of the Company’s customers. At March 31, 2013, the Company recorded an expense of approximately $412,000 related to the settlement, with approximately $377,000 recorded as accrued settlement and approximately $35,000 included in other accrued expenses. The Company was to pay amounts due to the plaintiff under the terms of the settlement agreement over a minimum period of 29 months which began June 1, 2013. In connection with an asset purchase agreement the Company entered into with the plaintiff on February 14, 2014 (see Note 2), the settlement agreement was amended such that, effective as of that date, the Company is no longer required to make monthly settlement payments and will pay only maintenance fees to the plaintiff on a monthly basis over the remainder of the 29-month period which began June 1, 2013.

The Company is involved in other claims and litigation from time to time in the normal course of business. The Company does not believe these matters will have a significant adverse impact on the Company’s operations or financial condition.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details