Opinion ID: 201761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Our reading of the statute

Text: 41 The most natural meaning of the text of § 11107 is that it declares [a]n engagement of a seaman contrary to a law of the United States is void, and provides remedies for the seaman. 46 U.S.C. § 11107. 42 The cardinal rule [is] that a statute is to be read as a whole ..., since the meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 515, 113 S.Ct. 1562, 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993). Section 11107 is located in Part G, Merchant Seaman Protection and Relief, of Subtitle II of Title 46. The provisions of Part G form an interlocking whole and are exclusively concerned with regulating the relationship between seamen and the masters and owners of the vessels in which they set out to sea. Rivera, 131 F.3d at 233 (Torruella, J., concurring). Reading the highest rate of wages provision in the context of the rest of Part G, it seems appropriate that the provision should be applied to violations of lay share fishing agreements. 43 The most natural reading of the term seaman in § 11107 is that seaman encompasses lay share fishermen. Section 11107 provides remedies for a seaman who is engaged contrary to law. Section 10101(3) of Part G defines seaman as an individual ... engaged or employed in any capacity on board a vessel. 46 U.S.C. § 10101(3). This definition appears to encompass fishermen. The vessel owners do not contest the fact that the fishermen are employees of the vessel and serve as crewmen. 44 In addition, unlike some other sections within Part G, which specifically exclude lay-share fishermen, § 11107 includes no such provision indicating Congressional intent to limit the statute's application to merchant seamen. Huntress, 301 F.Supp.2d at 146 (citations omitted). 45 Furthermore, § 10601, which contains requirements for fishing agreements, describes lay share fishermen as seamen. Section 10601 is a liability section and § 11107 is tied to § 10601 as a remedial provision. Section 10601 is also located in Part G. It was enacted in 1988 when Congress passed the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988, an Act with broad remedial purposes. By its terms, § 10601 provides that seamen are to be protected by the statute. The section specifically includes lay share fishermen by providing that [t]he agreement shall ... include the terms of any wage, share, or other compensation arrangement peculiar to the fishery in which the vessel will be engaged. 46 U.S.C. § 10601(c)(2) (emphasis added). 46 Thus, § 10601 places certain requirements on fishing agreements, and if the vessel owners or masters engage a fisherman — regardless of whether he is earning lay shares or wages — contrary to the provisions of § 10601, there should be a remedy. Yet, in this instance, where the fishermen have already received a lay share portion of the proceeds from the fishing voyages they participated in, there does not appear to be any other real remedy for the vessel owners' failure to comply with § 10601, absent § 11107. 47 Appellants contend that the vessel owners' loss of the benefit of a limited statute of limitations when the fishing contracts do not comply with § 10601 is the only remedy available to the fishermen. See 46 U.S.C. § 10602(a) (1988) (When fish caught under an agreement under section 10601 of this title are delivered to the owner of the vessel for processing and are sold, the vessel is liable in rem for the wages and shares of the proceeds of the seamen. An action under this section must be brought within six months after the sale of the fish.). But, where, as here, the fishermen have already been paid a lay share pursuant to an invalid agreement, the vessel owners' loss of this six-month limitation fails to provide a remedy. Under the view that the only penalty is the removal of the six month statute of limitations, the fishermen will get nothing beyond that which they have already received — lay shares paid in accordance with the invalid contracts. We also note that there is nothing that says the statute of limitations provision in § 10602(a) is intended to be the exclusive remedy for a violation of § 10601. 48 Thus, reading § 11107 together with § 10601, we find that the highest rate of wages provision is a cause of action available to lay share fishermen when their fishing agreements are contrary to law. Both the Ninth Circuit and Alaska Supreme Court have reached the same conclusion. See Flores v. American Seafoods Co., 335 F.3d 904, 912 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that an agreement that violates the requirements of § 10601 will trigger the application of 46 U.S.C. § 11107); TCW Special Credits, 129 F.3d at 1333 (Fishermen hired without articles, contrary to the provisions of section 10601, may avail themselves of the protection afforded seamen by 46 U.S.C. § 11107.); Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Conaway, 98 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.1996) (Section 11107 provides for a penalty against vessel owners who employ seamen without written agreements in violation of § 10601.); Bjornsson, 863 P.2d at 240 (holding that §§ 10601 and 11107 apply to lay share fishermen and that [l]ay share arrangements must be written down to avoid penalties under section 11107).