Contingencies (Note)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 01, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Legal Contingencies From time to time, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial claimed amounts) arising out of the conduct of its business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, product liability, intellectual property and other matters. Items included in these other matters are discussed below. The Company believes recorded reserves in its Consolidated Financial Statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable outcomes of the items discussed below. Any recorded liabilities were not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operation or liquidity and the Company does not currently believe that any pending claims or litigation, including those identified below, will materially affect its financial position, results of operation or liquidity. Donaldson On May 15, 2009, Donaldson Company, Inc. (“Donaldson”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain “ChannelFlow®” engine/mobile filters manufactured and sold by, Baldwin Filters, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company ("Baldwin"), infringed one or more patents held by Donaldson. On February 1, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ending the lawsuit, the terms of which are confidential. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Baldwin agreed to pay certain present and future amounts to Donaldson in exchange for a license to produce certain existing ChannelFlow® products. Antitrust On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary Baldwin, (the “Defendant Group”), engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters. The suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, were filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. All of the U.S cases were consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court"). The Company consistently denied any wrongdoing whatsoever and has vigorously defended the action. On October 7, 2011, Baldwin entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the putative plaintiff classes involved in the action. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Baldwin denied any wrongdoing whatsoever but agreed to pay a total of $625 to a settlement fund to be divided among the plaintiff classes in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims with prejudice. Two other members of the Defendant Group, Donaldson and Cummins, Inc. , also entered into substantially identical settlement agreements with the putative plaintiff classes at the same time as Baldwin. The Company entered into the Settlement Agreement to free itself from the expense of ongoing U.S. litigation, which was anticipated to be many times greater than the agreed settlement amount. The Company paid the $625 settlement during the first quarter of fiscal year 2012. On November 28, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment order approving the Settlement Agreement as to the last of the U.S. plaintiff classes and dismissing the U.S. causes of action against Baldwin with prejudice and without costs. The time for appealing these U.S. actions has expired, and the Company faces no further liability in the United States in connection with this matter. Similarly, the Company does not believe that it faces any material liability in connection with the lone Canadian case that remains pending. The Company believes that the attorneys representing the Canadian plaintiff class have effectively abandoned the action in light of the small U.S. settlements. TransWeb/3M On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb, LLC ("TransWeb") in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe multiple claims of certain 3M patents. Shortly after receiving service of process in this litigation, TransWeb filed its own complaint against 3M in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and that the products in question do not infringe. 3M withdrew its Minnesota action, and the parties are currently litigating the matter in New Jersey. The litigation in question was filed and underway before the Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010, but the Company assumed the risk of this litigation as a result of the acquisition. On June 3, 2011, TransWeb filed a Second Amended Complaint against 3M, (i) seeking declaratory judgment that the asserted 3M patents are invalid, the TransWeb products in question do not infringe, and the 3M patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by 3M in obtaining the patents, (ii) alleging patent infringement by 3M of a patent held by TransWeb, and (iii) alleging antitrust violations by 3M in connection with certain upstream and downstream markets for fluorinated polymeric filtration media under theories of Walker Process fraud and sham litigation. TransWeb later dropped its patent infringement allegations against 3M, but continued to allege and pursue its inequitable conduct and antitrust claims. Prior to trial, 3M voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the majority of the patent claims 3M had originally brought against TransWeb, but continued to allege infringement by TransWeb of two claims of one of the patents in suit. A jury trial commenced on November 13, 2012. After 10 days of testimony and deliberation, on November 30, 2012, a six-member jury unanimously found that (i) TransWeb does not infringe the asserted claims of the 3M patent in suit, (ii) the asserted claims of the patent in suit are invalid as being obvious, (iii) 3M violated the antitrust laws in trying to enforce patents obtained through fraud on the United States Patent Office (i.e., Walker Process fraud), (iv) TransWeb is entitled to recoup lost profits of approximately $34 plus its attorneys' fees as damages, and (v) 3M did not engage in "sham" litigation. The jury also rendered a unanimous advisory verdict, which is not binding on the court, that 3M's asserted patents were obtained through inequitable conduct, and thus unenforceable. The court has not yet decided whether to accept the jury's verdict on inequitable conduct and has not yet issued a final judgment in the case, pending (i) resolution of various post-trial motions made by 3M to set aside the jury verdicts adverse to 3M, and (ii) a separate procedure before a third party Special Master to quantify and qualify TransWeb's attorneys' fees that may be awarded as damages, including those subject to potential trebling under the antitrust laws. Such procedure is anticipated to take until at least April 2013 to resolve. The Company acquired TransWeb on December 29, 2010 (see Note B). Of the base purchase price, the Company withheld payment of $17,000 pending resolution of the 3M litigation, which funds may be used by the Company in connection with the same. Any litigation related amounts incurred in excess of the amount withheld will be expensed and paid by the Company. During the years ended November 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company applied legal charges of $10,140 and $6,329, respectively, against the withheld payment, leaving a remaining balance of $531. At November 30, 2012, $531 is included in Other accrued liabilities (see Note F) in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company does not anticipate incurring any liability in connection with the litigation, but does anticipate having to expense litigation related amounts beyond the $531 remaining, due to the significant post-trial activities and anticipated appeal referenced above. The Company does not accrue for such expenses, but recognizes them as they are incurred. Other Additionally, the Company is party to various proceedings relating to environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or other responsible state agencies have designated the Company as a potentially responsible party, along with other companies, in remedial activities for the cleanup of waste sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“the federal Superfund statute”). Although it is not certain what future environmental claims, if any, may be asserted, the Company currently believes that its potential liability for known environmental matters is not material. However, environmental and related remediation costs are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, including the number of parties involved, the difficulty in determining the nature and extent of the contamination at issue, the length of time remediation may require, the complexity of the environmental regulation and the continuing advancement of remediation technology. Applicable federal law may impose joint and several liability on each potentially responsible party for the cleanup. In addition to the matters cited above, the Company is involved in legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records provisions with respect to identified claims or lawsuits when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims and lawsuits are reviewed quarterly and provisions are taken or adjusted to reflect the status of a particular matter. No such provisions have been taken in respect of the Donaldson, antitrust or TransWeb legal proceedings referred to above. Other Contingencies In the event of a change in control of the Company, termination benefits are likely to be required for certain executive officers and other employees.

CONTINGENCIES

Legal Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and disputes (some of which involve substantial claimed amounts) arising out of the conduct of its business, including matters relating to commercial transactions, product liability, intellectual property and other matters. Items included in these other matters are discussed below. The Company believes recorded reserves in its Consolidated Financial Statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable outcomes of the items discussed below. Any recorded liabilities were not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operation or liquidity and the Company does not currently believe that any pending claims or litigation, including those identified below, will materially affect its financial position, results of operation or liquidity.

Donaldson

On May 15, 2009, Donaldson Company, Inc. (“Donaldson”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain “ChannelFlow®” engine/mobile filters manufactured and sold by, Baldwin Filters, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company ("Baldwin"), infringed one or more patents held by Donaldson. On February 1, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ending the lawsuit, the terms of which are confidential. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Baldwin agreed to pay certain present and future amounts to Donaldson in exchange for a license to produce certain existing ChannelFlow® products.

Antitrust

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary Baldwin, (the “Defendant Group”), engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket filters. The suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group. Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, were filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. All of the U.S cases were consolidated into a single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court"). The Company consistently denied any wrongdoing whatsoever and has vigorously defended the action.

On October 7, 2011, Baldwin entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with the putative plaintiff classes involved in the action. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Baldwin denied any wrongdoing whatsoever but agreed to pay a total of $625 to a settlement fund to be divided among the plaintiff classes in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims with prejudice. Two other members of the Defendant Group, Donaldson and Cummins, Inc. , also entered into substantially identical settlement agreements with the putative plaintiff classes at the same time as Baldwin.

The Company entered into the Settlement Agreement to free itself from the expense of ongoing U.S. litigation, which was anticipated to be many times greater than the agreed settlement amount. The Company paid the $625 settlement during the first quarter of fiscal year 2012. On November 28, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment order approving the Settlement Agreement as to the last of the U.S. plaintiff classes and dismissing the U.S. causes of action against Baldwin with prejudice and without costs. The time for appealing these U.S. actions has expired, and the Company faces no further liability in the United States in connection with this matter. Similarly, the Company does not believe that it faces any material liability in connection with the lone Canadian case that remains pending. The Company believes that the attorneys representing the Canadian plaintiff class have effectively abandoned the action in light of the small U.S. settlements.

TransWeb/3M

On May 21, 2010, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties (“3M”) brought a lawsuit against TransWeb, LLC ("TransWeb") in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that certain TransWeb products infringe multiple claims of certain 3M patents. Shortly after receiving service of process in this litigation, TransWeb filed its own complaint against 3M in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are invalid and that the products in question do not infringe. 3M withdrew its Minnesota action, and the parties are currently litigating the matter in New Jersey.

The litigation in question was filed and underway before the Company acquired TransWeb in December 2010, but the Company assumed the risk of this litigation as a result of the acquisition. On June 3, 2011, TransWeb filed a Second Amended Complaint against 3M, (i) seeking declaratory judgment that the asserted 3M patents are invalid, the TransWeb products in question do not infringe, and the 3M patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by 3M in obtaining the patents, (ii) alleging patent infringement by 3M of a patent held by TransWeb, and (iii) alleging antitrust violations by 3M in connection with certain upstream and downstream markets for fluorinated polymeric filtration media under theories of Walker Process fraud and sham litigation. TransWeb later dropped its patent infringement allegations against 3M, but continued to allege and pursue its inequitable conduct and antitrust claims. Prior to trial, 3M voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the majority of the patent claims 3M had originally brought against TransWeb, but continued to allege infringement by TransWeb of two claims of one of the patents in suit.

A jury trial commenced on November 13, 2012. After 10 days of testimony and deliberation, on November 30, 2012, a six-member jury unanimously found that (i) TransWeb does not infringe the asserted claims of the 3M patent in suit, (ii) the asserted claims of the patent in suit are invalid as being obvious, (iii) 3M violated the antitrust laws in trying to enforce patents obtained through fraud on the United States Patent Office (i.e., Walker Process fraud), (iv) TransWeb is entitled to recoup lost profits of approximately $34 plus its attorneys' fees as damages, and (v) 3M did not engage in "sham" litigation. The jury also rendered a unanimous advisory verdict, which is not binding on the court, that 3M's asserted patents were obtained through inequitable conduct, and thus unenforceable.

The court has not yet decided whether to accept the jury's verdict on inequitable conduct and has not yet issued a final judgment in the case, pending (i) resolution of various post-trial motions made by 3M to set aside the jury verdicts adverse to 3M, and (ii) a separate procedure before a third party Special Master to quantify and qualify TransWeb's attorneys' fees that may be awarded as damages, including those subject to potential trebling under the antitrust laws. Such procedure is anticipated to take until at least April 2013 to resolve.

The Company acquired TransWeb on December 29, 2010 (see Note B). Of the base purchase price, the Company withheld payment of $17,000 pending resolution of the 3M litigation, which funds may be used by the Company in connection with the same. Any litigation related amounts incurred in excess of the amount withheld will be expensed and paid by the Company. During the years ended November 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company applied legal charges of $10,140 and $6,329, respectively, against the withheld payment, leaving a remaining balance of $531. At November 30, 2012, $531 is included in Other accrued liabilities (see Note F) in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company does not anticipate incurring any liability in connection with the litigation, but does anticipate having to expense litigation related amounts beyond the $531 remaining, due to the significant post-trial activities and anticipated appeal referenced above. The Company does not accrue for such expenses, but recognizes them as they are incurred.

Other

Additionally, the Company is party to various proceedings relating to environmental issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or other responsible state agencies have designated the Company as a potentially responsible party, along with other companies, in remedial activities for the cleanup of waste sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“the federal Superfund statute”). Although it is not certain what future environmental claims, if any, may be asserted, the Company currently believes that its potential liability for known environmental matters is not material. However, environmental and related remediation costs are difficult to quantify for a number of reasons, including the number of parties involved, the difficulty in determining the nature and extent of the contamination at issue, the length of time remediation may require, the complexity of the environmental regulation and the continuing advancement of remediation technology. Applicable federal law may impose joint and several liability on each potentially responsible party for the cleanup.

In addition to the matters cited above, the Company is involved in legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records provisions with respect to identified claims or lawsuits when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims and lawsuits are reviewed quarterly and provisions are taken or adjusted to reflect the status of a particular matter. No such provisions have been taken in respect of the Donaldson, antitrust or TransWeb legal proceedings referred to above.

Other Contingencies

In the event of a change in control of the Company, termination benefits are likely to be required for certain executive officers and other employees.