Whether an employee is ``employed as a seaman'', within the meaning
of the Act, depends upon the character of the work he actually performs
and not on what it is called or the place where it is performed (Walling
v. Haden, 153 F. 2d 196; Cuascut v. Standard Dredging Corp., 94 F. Supp.
197). Merely because one works aboard a vessel (Helena Glendale Ferry
Co. v. Walling, 132 F. 2d 616; Walling v. Bay State Dredging &
Contracting Co., 149 F. 2d 346), or may be articled as a seaman (see
Walling v. Haden, supra), or performs some maritime duties (Walling v.
Bay State Dredging & Contracting Co., 149 F. 2d 346; Anderson v.
Manhattan Lighterage Corp.,
148 F. 2d 971) one is not employed as a seaman within the meaning of the
Act unless one's services are rendered primarily as an aid in the
operation of the vessel as a means of transportation, as for example
services performed substantially as an aid to the vessel in navigation.
For this reason it would appear that employees making repairs to vessels
between navigation seasons would not be ``employed as'' seamen during
such a period. (See Desper v. Starved Rock Ferry Co., 342 U.S. 187; but
see Walling v. Keansburg Steamboat Co., 162 F. 2d 405 in which the
seaman exemption was allowed in the case of an article employee provided
he also worked in the ensuing navigation period but not in the case of
unarticled employees who only worked during the lay-up period.) For the
same and other reasons, stevedores and longshoremen are not employed as
seamen. (Knudson v. Lee & Simmons, Inc., 163 F. 2d 95.) Stevedores or
roust-abouts traveling aboard a vessel from port to port whose principal
duties require them to load and unload the vessel in port would not be
employed as seamen even though during the voyage they may perform from
time to time certain services of the same type as those rendered by
other employees who would be regarded as seamen under the Act.
