29 C.F.R. § 783.36

Barge tenders

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Barge tenders on non-selfpropelled barges who perform the normal duties of their occupation, such as attending to the lines and anchors, putting out running and mooring lights, pumping out bilge water, and other similar activities necessary and usual to the navigation of barges, are considered to be employed as “seamen” for the purposes of the Act unless they do a substantial amount of “non-seaman's” work (Gale v. Union Bag & Paper Corp., 116 F. (2d) 27 (C.A. 5, 1940), cert. den. 313 U.S. 559 (1941)). However, there are employees who, while employed on vessels such as barges and lighters, are primarily or substantially engaged in performing duties such as loading and unloading or custodial service which do not constitute service performed primarily as an aid in the operation of these vessels as a means of transportation and consequently are not employed as “seamen” (McCarthy v. Wright & Cobb Lighterage Co., 163 F. (2d) 92; Anderson v. Manhattan Lighterage Corp., 148 F. (2d) 971, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 722; Woods Lumber Co. v. Tobin, 20 Labor Cases 66, 640 (W.D. Tenn, 1951), aff'd, 199 F. (2d) 455). Whether an employee is on board a vessel primarily to perform maritime services as a seaman or loading and unloading services typical of such shore-bases personnel as longshoremen is a question of fact and can be determined only after reviewing all the facts in the particular case.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Keith Coffin v. Blessey Marine Servs., In, 771 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Keith Coffin v. Blessey Marine Servs., In, 771 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “32 (suggesting that loading and unloading freight is nonseaman work but may not change a seaman’s classification if the work is insubstantial); 29 C.F.R. § 783.36 (explaining that barge tenders who primarily or substantially load and unload cargo are not seamen).”

Mcmahan v. Adept Process Servs., Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (E.D. Va. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 783.36 . Finally, a “seaman” will be regarded as such “even though during the workweek he performs some work of a nature other than that which characterizes the service of a seaman, if such nonseaman’s work is not substantial in amount,” and “such differing work is…”

Owens Ex Rel. SeaRiver Mar., Inc. v. SeaRiver Mar., Inc., 272 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2001). “See 29 C.F.R. § 783.36 (citing McCarthy v. Wright & Cobb Lighterage Co.”

Adams v. All Coast, 15 F.4th 365 (5th Cir. 2021). “” (citing 29 C.F.R. § 783.36 )). The defendant company in Owens argued that the loading and unloading was seaman’s work because “if a barge was loaded or unloaded improperly it could not be safely moved or towed, and could even break apart.”

Larry Worthington, Roger Cameron, David Davey & Gerald Kent, Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., a Washington Corp., Cross, 774 F.2d 349 (9th Cir. 1985). “1947); accord, 29 C.F.R. § 783.36 . Similarly, employees whose duties on movable dredges are primarily industrial but who occasionally perform maritime duties are not seamen.”

Larry Worthington, Roger Cameron, David Davey & Gerald Kent, Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., a Washington Corp., Cross, 749 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1985). “1947); accord, 29 C.F.R. § 783.36 . Similarly, employees whose duties on movable dredges are primarily industrial but who occasionally perform maritime duties are not seamen.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.