2.2.0.7 false Commitments and contingencies (Pound in millions) 0211 - Disclosure - Commitments and contingencies (Pound in millions) true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 USDEPS Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Commitments and contingencies (Pound in millions) [Abstract] 0 drc_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstract drc false na duration Commitments and Contingencies. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Commitments and Contingencies. false 3 Commitments and contingencies (Pound in millions) 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false verboselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0   <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt"><b>11. Commitments and contingencies (£ in millions)</b> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-indent: 4%">We are involved in various litigation, claims and administrative proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Amounts recorded for identified contingent liabilities are estimates, which are regularly reviewed and adjusted to reflect additional information when it becomes available. We are indemnified by our former owner, Ingersoll Rand Company Limited, for certain matters as part of Ingersoll Rand’s sale of the Company. While adverse decisions in certain of these litigation matters, claims and administrative proceedings could have a material effect on a particular quarter’s or year’s results of operations, subject to the uncertainties inherent in estimating future costs for contingent liabilities and the benefit of the indemnity from Ingersoll Rand, management believes that any future accruals, with respect to these currently known contingencies, would not have a material effect on the financial condition, liquidity or cash flows of the Company. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-indent: 4%">The previously reported tort claim brought against the Company in 2008 in the Prakhanong Provincial court, Thailand by Kaona Power Supply Co. Ltd was settled on July 13, 2010, with an immaterial payment by the Company. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-indent: 4%">In November 2007, Local 313 of IUE-CWA, the union that represents certain employees at the Company’s Painted Post facility (the “IUE”) made an offer to have its striking members return to work under the terms of the previously expired union agreement. The Company rejected that offer and a lockout of the represented employees commenced. Approximately one week later, after reaching an impasse in negotiations, the Company exercised its right to implement the terms of its last contract offer, ended the lockout, and the employees represented by the IUE agreed to return to work under the implemented terms. Subsequently, the IUE filed several unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charges against the Company with Region 3 of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), asserting multiple allegations arising from the protracted labor dispute, its termination, contract negotiations and related matters. </div>   </div>  <div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; margin-left: 0in; "> <div align="center" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 0pt"> </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-indent: 4%">Region 3 of the NLRB decided to proceed to complaint on only one-third of the ULP allegations asserted by the IUE, while the remaining claims were dismissed. Notably, the NLRB found that many of the critical aspects of the Company’s negotiations with the IUE were handled appropriately, that the union’s strike was not an unfair labor practice strike and the Company’s declaration of impasse and its unilateral implementation of its last offer were lawful. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-indent: 4%">The claims that proceeded to complaint before the NLRB included the Company’s handling of the one week lockout, the negotiation of the recall process used to return employees to the facility after reaching impasse and lifting the lockout, and the termination of two employees who engaged in misconduct on the picket line during the strike. The trial of this matter took place before a NLRB Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) in Elmira and Painted Post, N.Y. during the summer of 2009. On January 29, 2010, the ALJ issued his decision in which he found in favor of the union on some issues and upheld the Company’s position on others. The Company continues to believe it complied with the law with respect to the allegations that led to the adverse ALJ ruling, and it has appealed these rulings to the NLRB in Washington, D.C. While the Company believes it should ultimately prevail with respect to these ULP allegations, several levels of appeal may be necessary. The Company anticipates that any impact arising from the ULP allegations will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition. The appellate process could reasonably take 3 to 5 years and potentially even longer to resolve with finality. </div> <div align="left" style="font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-indent: 4%">During the three months ended September 30, 2009, the Company received notification from the current plan trustees of one of its subsidiaries’ pension plans in the United Kingdom that the plan may not have been properly amended to achieve sex equalization. The third-party trustee at the time action was taken believes that it had taken the appropriate steps to properly amend the plan. If it is determined that sex equalization was not achieved, certain benefits would be recalculated by reference to a normal retirement date of 60 for both men and women, which we believe could result in a potential liability of up to approximately £4.0 ($6.1). </div> </div>  <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true