Claimant worked for Employer as a security guard. During the regular work week, Claimant manned the entry gates. On weekends, his security rounds happened though Employer’s submarine production areas. The issue presented was whether Claimant’s security guard/emergency medical technician job constituted marine employment. Both the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) held that it did not.
Section 2(3) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act provides that “the term ’employee’ means any person engaged in maritime employment, including any longshoreman or other person engaged in longshoring operations, and any harbor-worker including a ship repairman, shipbuilder, and ship-breaker . . . .” See 33 U.S.C. § 902 (1984). Here, the ALJ determined that Claimant “was not engaged in maritime employment as he was not employed on navigable waters, did not protect cargo, and the non-performance of claimant’s duties would not have impeded employer’s shipbuilding activities.” The BRB agreed, reasoning that Claimant’s job duties did not involve “the protection or checking of cargo, or working on a pier.” As Claimant’s employment was not maritime employment, he was not entitled to Longshore benefits.
Gelinas v. Electric Boat Corp., BRB No. 12-0587 (2013) (published).
(Note: I originally published this post on Navigable Waters: A Maritime, Longshore and Defense Base Act Blog.)
