Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jul. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies In September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) issued a directive to approximately 30 companies, including Franklin-Burlington Plastics, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company (“Franklin-Burlington”), to undertake an assessment of natural resource damage and perform interim restoration of the Lower Passaic River, a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in northern New Jersey. The directive, insofar as it relates to the Company and its subsidiary, pertains to the Company's plastic resin manufacturing facility in Kearny, New Jersey, located adjacent to the Lower Passaic River. The Company acquired the facility in 1986, when it purchased the stock of the facility's former owner, Franklin Plastics Corp. The Company acquired all of Franklin Plastics Corp.'s environmental liabilities as part of the acquisition. Also in 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) requested that companies located in the area of the Lower Passaic River, including Franklin-Burlington, cooperate in an investigation of contamination of the Lower Passaic River. In response, the Company and approximately 70 other companies (collectively, the “Cooperating Parties”) agreed, pursuant to an Administrative Order of Consent with the USEPA, to assume responsibility for completing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RIFS”) of the Lower Passaic River. The RIFS is currently estimated to cost approximately $85 million to complete (in addition to USEPA oversight costs) and is currently expected to be completed by late 2012 or early 2013. However, the RIFS costs are exclusive of any costs that may ultimately be required to remediate the Lower Passaic River area being studied or costs associated with natural resource damages that may be assessed. By agreeing to bear a portion of the cost of the RIFS, the Company did not admit to or agree to bear any such remediation or natural resource damage costs. In 2007, the USEPA issued a draft study that evaluated nine alternatives for early remedial action of a portion of the Lower Passaic River. The estimated cost of the alternatives ranged from $900 million to $2.3 billion. The Cooperating Parties provided comments to the USEPA regarding this draft study and to date the USEPA has not taken further action. Given that the USEPA has not finalized its study and that the RIFS is still ongoing, the Company does not believe that remedial costs can be reliably estimated at this time. In 2009, the Company's subsidiary and over 300 other companies were named as third-party defendants in a suit brought by the NJDEP in Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, against Occidental Chemical Corporation and certain related entities (collectively, the “Occidental Parties”) with respect to alleged contamination of the Newark Bay Complex, including the Lower Passaic River. The third-party complaint seeks contributions from the third-party defendants with respect to any award to NJDEP of damages against the Occidental Parties in the matter. As of July 30, 2011, the Company had approximately $714 accrued related to these Lower Passaic River matters representing funding of the RIFS costs and related legal expenses of the RIFS and this litigation. Given the uncertainties pertaining to this matter, including that the RIFS is ongoing, the ultimate remediation has not yet been determined and since the extent to which the Company may be responsible for such remediation or natural resource damages is not yet known, it is not possible at this time to estimate the Company's ultimate liability related to this matter. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, consolidated financial position, or cash flows because the Company's Kearny, New Jersey, facility could not have contributed contamination along most of the river's length and did not store or use the contaminants that are of the greatest concern in the river sediments and because there are numerous other parties who will likely share in the cost of remediation and damages. However, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter could materially differ from the July 30, 2011, accrual balance, and in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, the impact on the Company's results of operations, consolidated financial position or cash flows could be material to any specific period. In March 2010, DPH Holdings Corp., a successor to Delphi Corporation and certain of its affiliates ("Delphi"), served Spartech Polycom, a subsidiary of the Company, with a complaint seeking to avoid and recover approximately $8.6 million in alleged preference payments Delphi made to Spartech Polycom shortly before Delphi's bankruptcy filing in 2005. Delphi initially pursued similar preference complaints against approximately 175 additional unrelated third parties. The complaint, dated September 26, 2007, was originally filed under seal in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (In re: DPH Holdings Corp., et al., Delphi Corporation, et al. v. Spartech Polycom - Bankruptcy Case No. 05-44481/Adversary Proceeding No. 07-02639) but service process did not commence until March 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2010. Following oral argument on the motion to dismiss, the Bankruptcy Court ordered Delphi to file a motion for leave to amend its complaint. Delphi subsequently filed such motion, and a hearing on the motion was held in June 2011. A second hearing date is scheduled for late October 2011 for continued oral argument on such motion. Though the ultimate liabilities resulting from this proceeding, if any, could be significant to the Company's results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or cash flows. On December 14, 2009, Simmons Bedding Company and The Simmons Manufacturing Co., LLC (collectively, “Simmons”) filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County (Simmons Bedding Company and The Simmons Manufacturing Co., LLC v. Creative Vinyl/Fabrics, Inc. and its owner, Spartech Corporation, Spartech Polycom Calendared & Converted Products, Granwell Products, Inc., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation USA - Docket No. ESX-L-10197-09) alleging that vinyl product supplied to Simmons failed to meet certain specifications and claiming, among other things, a breach of contract, breach of warranty and fraud for which Simmons is seeking unspecified damages, including costs related to a product recall. Creative Vinyl/Fabrics, Inc. (“Creative”) is seeking common law indemnification and contribution from the Company. The Company supplied Creative with PVC film pursuant to purchase orders submitted by Creative, which Creative further processed and then sold to Simmons. Discovery is ongoing and a date for trial has not yet been scheduled. At this point, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. Based upon the discovery conducted to date, management believes that although the ultimate liabilities resulting from this proceeding, if any, could be significant to the Company's results of operations in the period recognized, such liabilities would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or cash flows. The Company is also subject to various other claims, lawsuits and administrative proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business with respect to commercial, product liability, employment and other matters, several of which claim substantial amounts of damages. While it is not possible to estimate with certainty the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, lawsuits, and administrative proceedings, the Company believes that the outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In September 2010, the Company entered into a subordinated secured note receivable with a customer for $9.9 million. As of July 30, 2011 the Company's gross receivable balance was approximately $4.0 million. The subordinated secured note receivable matured in April 2011 and is in default. During the third quarter of 2011 the customer sold its assets in a U.C.C article 9 foreclosure sale. The Company understands the customer is no longer a revenue generating entity and does not appear to have any additional assets to settle claims. It is doubtful that this customer will be able to pay the subordinated secured note receivable balance or that the Company will ultimately be able to collect from this customer. Based on the above circumstances we have adequate reserves for the potential uncollectible portion of the subordinated secured note receivable as of July 30, 2011.

Commitments and Contingencies

In September 2003, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) issued a directive to approximately 30 companies, including Franklin-Burlington Plastics, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company (“Franklin-Burlington”), to undertake an assessment of natural resource damage and perform interim restoration of the Lower Passaic River, a 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River in northern New Jersey. The directive, insofar as it relates to the Company and its subsidiary, pertains to the Company's plastic resin manufacturing facility in Kearny, New Jersey, located adjacent to the Lower Passaic River. The Company acquired the facility in 1986, when it purchased the stock of the facility's former owner, Franklin Plastics Corp. The Company acquired all of Franklin Plastics Corp.'s environmental liabilities as part of the acquisition.

Also in 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) requested that companies located in the area of the Lower Passaic River, including Franklin-Burlington, cooperate in an investigation of contamination of the Lower Passaic River. In response, the Company and approximately 70 other companies (collectively, the “Cooperating Parties”) agreed, pursuant to an Administrative Order of Consent with the USEPA, to assume responsibility for completing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RIFS”) of the Lower Passaic River. The RIFS is currently estimated to cost approximately $85 million to complete (in addition to USEPA oversight costs) and is currently expected to be completed by late 2012 or early 2013. However, the RIFS costs are exclusive of any costs that may ultimately be required to remediate the Lower Passaic River area being studied or costs associated with natural resource damages that may be assessed. By agreeing to bear a portion of the cost of the RIFS, the Company did not admit to or agree to bear any such remediation or natural resource damage costs. In 2007, the USEPA issued a draft study that evaluated nine alternatives for early remedial action of a portion of the Lower Passaic River. The estimated cost of the alternatives ranged from $900 million to $2.3 billion. The Cooperating Parties provided comments to the USEPA regarding this draft study and to date the USEPA has not taken further action. Given that the USEPA has not finalized its study and that the RIFS is still ongoing, the Company does not believe that remedial costs can be reliably estimated at this time.

In 2009, the Company's subsidiary and over 300 other companies were named as third-party defendants in a suit brought by the NJDEP in Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, against Occidental Chemical Corporation and certain related entities (collectively, the “Occidental Parties”) with respect to alleged contamination of the Newark Bay Complex, including the Lower Passaic River. The third-party complaint seeks contributions from the third-party defendants with respect to any award to NJDEP of damages against the Occidental Parties in the matter.

As of July 30, 2011, the Company had approximately $714 accrued related to these Lower Passaic River matters representing funding of the RIFS costs and related legal expenses of the RIFS and this litigation. Given the uncertainties pertaining to this matter, including that the RIFS is ongoing, the ultimate remediation has not yet been determined and since the extent to which the Company may be responsible for such remediation or natural resource damages is not yet known, it is not possible at this time to estimate the Company's ultimate liability related to this matter. Based on currently known facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that this matter is reasonably likely to have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, consolidated financial position, or cash flows because the Company's Kearny, New Jersey, facility could not have contributed contamination along most of the river's length and did not store or use the contaminants that are of the greatest concern in the river sediments and because there are numerous other parties who will likely share in the cost of remediation and damages. However, it is possible that the ultimate liability resulting from this matter could materially differ from the July 30, 2011, accrual balance, and in the event of one or more adverse determinations related to this matter, the impact on the Company's results of operations, consolidated financial position or cash flows could be material to any specific period.

In March 2010, DPH Holdings Corp., a successor to Delphi Corporation and certain of its affiliates ("Delphi"), served Spartech Polycom, a subsidiary of the Company, with a complaint seeking to avoid and recover approximately $8.6 million in alleged preference payments Delphi made to Spartech Polycom shortly before Delphi's bankruptcy filing in 2005. Delphi initially pursued similar preference complaints against approximately 175 additional unrelated third parties. The complaint, dated September 26, 2007, was originally filed under seal in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (In re: DPH Holdings Corp., et al., Delphi Corporation, et al. v. Spartech Polycom - Bankruptcy Case No. 05-44481/Adversary Proceeding No. 07-02639) but service process did not commence until March 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2010. Following oral argument on the motion to dismiss, the Bankruptcy Court ordered Delphi to file a motion for leave to amend its complaint. Delphi subsequently filed such motion, and a hearing on the motion was held in June 2011. A second hearing date is scheduled for late October 2011 for continued oral argument on such motion. Though the ultimate liabilities resulting from this proceeding, if any, could be significant to the Company's results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or cash flows.

On December 14, 2009, Simmons Bedding Company and The Simmons Manufacturing Co., LLC (collectively, “Simmons”) filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County (Simmons Bedding Company and The Simmons Manufacturing Co., LLC v. Creative Vinyl/Fabrics, Inc. and its owner, Spartech Corporation, Spartech Polycom Calendared & Converted Products, Granwell Products, Inc., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation USA - Docket No. ESX-L-10197-09) alleging that vinyl product supplied to Simmons failed to meet certain specifications and claiming, among other things, a breach of contract, breach of warranty and fraud for which Simmons is seeking unspecified damages, including costs related to a product recall. Creative Vinyl/Fabrics, Inc. (“Creative”) is seeking common law indemnification and contribution from the Company. The Company supplied Creative with PVC film pursuant to purchase orders submitted by Creative, which Creative further processed and then sold to Simmons. Discovery is ongoing and a date for trial has not yet been scheduled. At this point, the Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. Based upon the discovery conducted to date, management believes that although the ultimate liabilities resulting from this proceeding, if any, could be significant to the Company's results of operations in the period recognized, such liabilities would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or cash flows.

The Company is also subject to various other claims, lawsuits and administrative proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business with respect to commercial, product liability, employment and other matters, several of which claim substantial amounts of damages. While it is not possible to estimate with certainty the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, lawsuits, and administrative proceedings, the Company believes that the outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In September 2010, the Company entered into a subordinated secured note receivable with a customer for $9.9 million. As of July 30, 2011 the Company's gross receivable balance was approximately $4.0 million. The subordinated secured note receivable matured in April 2011 and is in default. During the third quarter of 2011 the customer sold its assets in a U.C.C article 9 foreclosure sale. The Company understands the customer is no longer a revenue generating entity and does not appear to have any additional assets to settle claims. It is doubtful that this customer will be able to pay the subordinated secured note receivable balance or that the Company will ultimately be able to collect from this customer. Based on the above circumstances we have adequate reserves for the potential uncollectible portion of the subordinated secured note receivable as of July 30, 2011.