interferes with the internal affairs of a foreign- flagged vessel, and whether, therefore, Congress must have provided a “clear statement” that the NLRA governs in that domain, is a “case-by-case” application. Id. 2. Application of the Benz Line of Cases to Plaintiffs’ Claims Applying the precedent set forth in Benz, McCulloch, and Ariadne Shipping, I conclude that the NLRA and LMRA do not govern Plaintiffs’ dispute. While Defendant Celebrity uses Miami, Florida as its base of operations, Celebrity is a Liberian corporation whose vessels are foreign-registered and operate under foreign flags (DE 64-2, p. 27, indicating the Celebrity ships covered by t nd American citizens or residents. Cf. Dowd v. International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO, 975 F.2d 779, 789-92 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Finally, as to Plaintiffs argument that,
holding nlra applied to american labor union who induced japanese unions to pressure japanese importers not to import florida citrus fruit loaded onto ships by nonunion labor because the boycott here did not aim at altering the terms of foreign crews on foreignflag vessels rather the object and effect of the conduct was to implement a secondary boycott within the united states holding nlra applied to state bank of indias activities in the united states because most employees are american citizens or american residents and the labor dispute centers on the wages to be paid american residents foreign or natural  holding that united states admiralty jurisdiction extended not only to the high seas but also to american vessels in foreign waters holding statute assessing duties on costs of foreign repairs done to united states vessels to be constitutional holding that  1981 was appropriate as a basis of a claim by nonjapanese employees of a japanese corporation