View all text of Subjgrp 429 [§ 784.118 - § 784.127]
§ 784.123 - Operations performed on fishing equipment.
On the principle stated in § 784.122 the replacement, repair, mending, or construction of the fisherman's equipment performed at the place of the fishing operation would be exempt. Such activities performed in contemplation of the trip are also within the exemption if the work is so closely related both in point of time and function to the acquisition of the aquatic life that it is really a part of the fishing operation or of “going to * * * work.” For example, under appropriate facts, the repair of the nets, or of the vessel, or the building of fish trap frames on the shore immediately prior to the opening of the fishing season would be within the exemption. Activities at the termination of a fishing trip which are similarly related in time and function to the actual conduct of fishing operations or “returning from work” may be within the exemption on like principles. Similarly, the fact that the exemption is intended generally for “offshore” activities does not mean that it may not apply to employment in other activities performed on shore which are so integrated with the conduct of actual fishing operations and functionally so necessary thereto that the employment is, in practical effect, directly and necessarily a part of the fishing operations for which the exemption is intended. In such circumstances the exemption will apply, for example, to an employee employed by a vessel owner to watch the fishing vessel, its equipment, and the catch when it comes to port, checks the mooring lines, operate bilge pumps and heating and cooling systems on the vessel, and assist in the loading and unloading of the fishing equipment and the catch. Work of the kinds referred to may be exempt when performed by the fisherman himself or necessary to the conduct of the fishing organization. However, the exemption would not apply to employees of a manufacturer of supplies or to employees of independent shops which repair boats and equipment. (Dize v. Maddix, 144 F. 2d 584, affirmed 324 U.S. 697.)