Legal Document

475 U.S. 709 106 S.Ct. 1527 89 L.Ed.2d 739 ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC., Petitionerv.Larry WORTHINGTON et al. No. 85-195. Argued Feb. 25, 1986. Decided April 21, Syllabus Respondents were employed by petitioner as members of the Engineering Department on board a nonself-propelled fish-processing barge. They sued in Federal District Court, seeking to recover overtime benefits under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Finding that they seamen because performed work maritime character navigable waters, Court held respondents excluded from such provision FLSA excludes "any employee seaman." The Appeals reversed. Reviewing "de novo" standard, found respondents' "dominant employment" was "industrial maintenance" and "maritime work" took only small portion their time, therefore concluded not seamen. Held: erred engaging factfinding. facts necessary proper determination legal question whether an exemption applies particular case should be reviewed courts appeals pursuant "clearly erroneous" standard review set forth Rule Civil Procedure 52(a), like other civil bench-tried litigation federal courts. Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 545, 67 883, 91 L.Ed. 1088 (1947). Here, if believed Court's factual findings within meaning it could have them aside, whereas, unassailable, but rule law correctly applied those findings, reversed judgment ground. But simply made its own. Pp. 712-715. 774 F.2d 349 (CA9 1985), vacated remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion which BURGER, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, post, p. 715. Clemens H. Barnes, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner. Carson F. Eller, Tacoma, respondents. Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 employer, Icicle Seafoods, Inc., thought entitled (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). After 2-day trial, United States Western Washington 213(b)(6), this issue review, Ninth Circuit holding "seamen," instead industrial maintenance employees barge processed fish caught fishing fleet coastal waters Pacific Northwest. (1985). We granted certiorari consider appropriate passing judgment. 474 900, 270, 88 224 2 following pertinent fact related "seamen" 213(b)(6): 3 "2. Defendant Seafoods owned operated seafood processing vessel named ARCTIC STAR. Each Plaintiffs worked STAR Department. . is moved place with aid tow boat, located throughout Alaska or Washington, depending season type being processed. 4 * 5 "7. None Processing Crew all hands-on packing shellfish. STAR, considered themselves very distinct Crew, did perform any As Department, responsible maintaining systems support continuous operation while at moorage underway. Although working shifts, had available call 24 hours day moment's notice keep operating. Even though plaintiffs licensed Coast Guard engineers engineering department, each tasks conformed expected personnel. description Plaintiff's marine engineer member department. In summary, crew rendered waters. employment App. A-3 Pet. Cert. 2-3, 5-6. 6 read 213(b)(6) evidence showed "performed waters." F.2d, 351. 7 reviewing conclusion, initially pointed out Courts conflicting standards claims exclusion FLSA, attributed these different approaches three cases decided few months during October 1946 Term. Ibid. recognized (1947), falls "executives" 213(a)(1) subject 52(a) Rules Procedure. 352. Levinson Spector Motor Service, 649, 931, 1158 Rutherford Food Corp. McComb, 331 722, 1473, 1772 appeared apply covered Carrier someone independent contractor rather than employee. reconciled reading grounds regulations implementing provisions "illustrative general," whereas "specific," trial court's based testimony witnesses. 8 think neither nor depart laid down Walling. involved brought Supreme Illinois, court accepted Illinois Appellate state are required 52(a)—a procedure—to own appellate system determinations came up through system, erroneously conclusion contractors "isolated factors" employee's relationship employer. U.S., 729-730, S.Ct., 1476-1477. lengthy summary without indicating source summary; fair indicates we focusing question, allocation factfinding responsibilities between district appeals. reaffirm our 9 proposed "apply de novo application [to] clearly erroneous standard." 352, citing McConney, 728 1195, 1202 (CA9) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 824, 105 101, 83 46 (1984). nowhere ever mention much less discuss analyze them. seems wrong what constitutes "seaman" 213(b)(6). Whereas see 6, regulations, critical factor determining seaman his "duties primarily navigation vessel." 353; also CFR §§ 783.31, 783.33, 783.36 record independently maintenance," time. 353. It mistaken engage "each [respondents] 6. no finding "incidental occasional, taking time." how spent time Arctic Star fact. activities both parties concede governed promulgated Wage Hour Administrator. See pt. 783 If failed make essential resolution remanded findings. view aside basis. misapplied stated Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 574-575, 1504, 1512, 84 518 (1985): 10 "The rationale deference original finder limited superiority judge's position credibility. major role fact, experience fulfilling comes expertise. Duplication efforts would likely contribute negligibly accuracy huge cost diversion judicial resources." accordingly vacated, cause further proceedings consistent opinion. 11 so ordered. 12 dissenting. 13 chastises supplying gap uncontested "remand[ing] findings." Ante, 714. criticism unwarranted. 14 respondents, who barge, qualify Act. dispute below regard definition "seaman"—an denied one ventures "found waters" "concluded 'seamen' exempt 213(b)(6)." 349, 351 1985). "[o]ne does become 'seaman' merely performing services aboard Id., Under understanding statute, seamen: 15 "These undisputed. 16 17 indicates, Icicle's counsel conceded oral argument, [processing barge] remained anchored most During periods, monitored, maintained repaired machinery electric power generators. some may been character, dominant maintenance. incidental 18 "We conclude employees, principally employees." 352-353. 19 quarrel "made own" "the 'maritime work' 'incidental time.' " Apparently, preferred "remanded Court," ibid., purely ministerial act entry formal "these undisputed" facts. "rationale fact," 574, 514 (1985), embodied compel entirely unrelated proposition general have, after correcting interpretation law, undisputed record—whether memorialized fact." This practice promotes just, speedy, inexpensive determination" actions intended secure, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 1, allows give guidance illustrating new case. 20 I affirm Appeals.

Classification Label: 8