OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES [Abstract]
OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES	NOTE 12. OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES Contingencies The Company is involved in certain environmental matters, including response actions at various locations. The Company had a recorded liability of $14 and $13 as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, for its share of aggregate future remediation costs related to these matters. One matter in Dickinson County, Michigan, for which the Company is jointly and severally liable, accounted for a substantial majority of the recorded liability as of both June 30, 2014 and 2013. The Company has agreed to be liable for 24.3% of the aggregate remediation and associated costs for this matter pursuant to a cost-sharing arrangement with a third party. With the assistance of environmental consultants, the Company maintains an undiscounted liability representing its current best estimate of its share of the capital expenditures, maintenance and other costs that may be incurred over an estimated 30-year remediation period. Currently, the Company cannot accurately predict the timing of future payments that may be made under this obligation. In addition, the Company's estimated loss exposure is sensitive to a variety of uncertain factors, including the efficacy of remediation efforts, changes in remediation requirements and the future availability of alternative clean-up technologies. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company's exposure may exceed the amount recorded, any amount of such additional exposures, or range of exposures, is not estimable at this time. In October 2012, a Brazilian appellate court issued an adverse decision in a lawsuit pending in Brazil against the Company and one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, The Glad Products Company (Glad). The lawsuit was initially filed in a Brazilian lower court in 2002 by two Brazilian companies and one Uruguayan company (collectively, Petroplus) related to joint venture agreements for the distribution of STP auto-care products in Brazil with three companies that became subsidiaries of the Company as a result of the Company's merger with First Brands Corporation in January 1999 (collectively, Clorox Subsidiaries). The pending lawsuit seeks indemnification for damages and losses for alleged breaches of the joint venture agreements and abuse of economic power by the Company and Glad. Petroplus had previously unsuccessfully raised the same claims and sought damages from the Company and the Clorox Subsidiaries in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration proceeding in Miami, Florida, filed in 2001. The ICC arbitration panel unanimously ruled against Petroplus in a final decision in November 2003 (Final ICC Arbitration Award). The Final ICC Arbitration Award was ratified by the Superior Court of Justice of Brazil in May 2007 (Foreign Judgment), and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida subsequently confirmed the Final ICC Arbitration Award and recognized and adopted the Foreign Judgment as a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (U.S. Judgment). Despite this, in March 2008, a Brazilian lower court ruled against the Company and Glad in the pending lawsuit and awarded Petroplus R$23 ($13) plus interest. The value of that judgment, including interest and foreign exchange fluctuations as of June 30, 2014, was approximately $39. Among other defenses, because the Final ICC Arbitration Award, the Foreign Judgment and the U.S. Judgment relate to the same claims as those in the pending lawsuit, the Company believes that Petroplus is precluded from re-litigating these claims. Based on the unfavorable appellate court decision, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that a loss could be incurred in this matter in excess of amounts accrued, and that the estimated range of such loss in this matter is from $0 to $33. The Company continues to believe that its defenses are meritorious, and has appealed the decision to the highest courts of Brazil. In the first stage of the appellate process, in December 2013, the appellate court declined to admit the Company's appeals to the highest courts. The Company then appealed directly to the highest courts and in May 2014, the Supreme Court of Justice agreed to consider the Company's appeal. Expenses related to this litigation and any potential additional loss would be reflected in discontinued operations, consistent with the Company's classification of expenses related to its discontinued Brazil operations. In a separate action filed in 2004 by Petroplus, a lower Brazilian court in January 2013 nullified the Final ICC Arbitration Award. The Company believes this judgment is inconsistent with the Foreign Judgment and the U.S. Judgment and that it is without merit. The Company appealed this decision, and the lower court decision was overturned by the appellate court in April 2014. Petroplus has appealed this decision to Brazil's highest court. Glad and the Clorox Subsidiaries have also filed separate lawsuits against Petroplus alleging misuse of the STP trademark and related matters, which are currently pending before Brazilian courts, and have taken other legal actions against Petroplus, which are pending. Additionally, in November 2013, the Clorox Subsidiaries initiated a new ICC arbitration seeking damages against Petroplus. The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other loss contingencies relating to issues such as contract disputes, product liability, patents and trademarks, advertising, and employee and other matters. Based on management's analysis, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate disposition of these matters, to the extent not previously provided for, will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the Company's consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. Guarantees In conjunction with divestitures and other transactions, the Company may provide typical indemnifications (e.g., indemnifications for representations and warranties and retention of previously existing environmental, tax and employee liabilities) that have terms that vary in duration and in the potential amount of the total obligation and, in many circumstances, are not explicitly defined. The Company has not made, nor does it believe that it is probable that it will make, any payments relating to its indemnifications, and believes that any reasonably possible payments would not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the Company's consolidated financial statements taken as a whole. The Company had not recorded any liabilities on the aforementioned guarantees as of June 30, 2014 and 2013. As of June 30, 2014, the Company was a party to letters of credit of $12, primarily related to one of its insurance carriers, of which $0 had been drawn upon.

NOTE 12. OTHER CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES

Contingencies

The Company is involved in certain environmental matters, including response actions at various locations. The Company had a recorded liability of $14 and $13 as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, for its share of aggregate future remediation costs related to these matters. One matter in Dickinson County, Michigan, for which the Company is jointly and severally liable, accounted for a substantial majority of the recorded liability as of both June 30, 2014 and 2013. The Company has agreed to be liable for 24.3% of the aggregate remediation and associated costs for this matter pursuant to a cost-sharing arrangement with a third party. With the assistance of environmental consultants, the Company maintains an undiscounted liability representing its current best estimate of its share of the capital expenditures, maintenance and other costs that may be incurred over an estimated 30-year remediation period. Currently, the Company cannot accurately predict the timing of future payments that may be made under this obligation. In addition, the Company's estimated loss exposure is sensitive to a variety of uncertain factors, including the efficacy of remediation efforts, changes in remediation requirements and the future availability of alternative clean-up technologies. Although it is reasonably possible that the Company's exposure may exceed the amount recorded, any amount of such additional exposures, or range of exposures, is not estimable at this time.

In October 2012, a Brazilian appellate court issued an adverse decision in a lawsuit pending in Brazil against the Company and one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, The Glad Products Company (Glad). The lawsuit was initially filed in a Brazilian lower court in 2002 by two Brazilian companies and one Uruguayan company (collectively, Petroplus) related to joint venture agreements for the distribution of STP auto-care products in Brazil with three companies that became subsidiaries of the Company as a result of the Company's merger with First Brands Corporation in January 1999 (collectively, Clorox Subsidiaries). The pending lawsuit seeks indemnification for damages and losses for alleged breaches of the joint venture agreements and abuse of economic power by the Company and Glad. Petroplus had previously unsuccessfully raised the same claims and sought damages from the Company and the Clorox Subsidiaries in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration proceeding in Miami, Florida, filed in 2001. The ICC arbitration panel unanimously ruled against Petroplus in a final decision in November 2003 (Final ICC Arbitration Award). The Final ICC Arbitration Award was ratified by the Superior Court of Justice of Brazil in May 2007 (Foreign Judgment), and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida subsequently confirmed the Final ICC Arbitration Award and recognized and adopted the Foreign Judgment as a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (U.S. Judgment). Despite this, in March 2008, a Brazilian lower court ruled against the Company and Glad in the pending lawsuit and awarded Petroplus R$23 ($13) plus interest. The value of that judgment, including interest and foreign exchange fluctuations as of June 30, 2014, was approximately $39.

Among other defenses, because the Final ICC Arbitration Award, the Foreign Judgment and the U.S. Judgment relate to the same claims as those in the pending lawsuit, the Company believes that Petroplus is precluded from re-litigating these claims. Based on the unfavorable appellate court decision, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that a loss could be incurred in this matter in excess of amounts accrued, and that the estimated range of such loss in this matter is from $0 to $33. The Company continues to believe that its defenses are meritorious, and has appealed the decision to the highest courts of Brazil. In the first stage of the appellate process, in December 2013, the appellate court declined to admit the Company's appeals to the highest courts. The Company then appealed directly to the highest courts and in May 2014, the Supreme Court of Justice agreed to consider the Company's appeal. Expenses related to this litigation and any potential additional loss would be reflected in discontinued operations, consistent with the Company's classification of expenses related to its discontinued Brazil operations.

In a separate action filed in 2004 by Petroplus, a lower Brazilian court in January 2013 nullified the Final ICC Arbitration Award. The Company believes this judgment is inconsistent with the Foreign Judgment and the U.S. Judgment and that it is without merit. The Company appealed this decision, and the lower court decision was overturned by the appellate court in April 2014. Petroplus has appealed this decision to Brazil's highest court.

Glad and the Clorox Subsidiaries have also filed separate lawsuits against Petroplus alleging misuse of the STP trademark and related matters, which are currently pending before Brazilian courts, and have taken other legal actions against Petroplus, which are pending. Additionally, in November 2013, the Clorox Subsidiaries initiated a new ICC arbitration seeking damages against Petroplus.

The Company is subject to various lawsuits, claims and other loss contingencies relating to issues such as contract disputes, product liability, patents and trademarks, advertising, and employee and other matters. Based on management's analysis, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate disposition of these matters, to the extent not previously provided for, will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the Company's consolidated financial statements taken as a whole.

Guarantees

In conjunction with divestitures and other transactions, the Company may provide typical indemnifications (e.g., indemnifications for representations and warranties and retention of previously existing environmental, tax and employee liabilities) that have terms that vary in duration and in the potential amount of the total obligation and, in many circumstances, are not explicitly defined. The Company has not made, nor does it believe that it is probable that it will make, any payments relating to its indemnifications, and believes that any reasonably possible payments would not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on the Company's consolidated financial statements taken as a whole.

The Company had not recorded any liabilities on the aforementioned guarantees as of June 30, 2014 and 2013.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company was a party to letters of credit of $12, primarily related to one of its insurance carriers, of which $0 had been drawn upon.