Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
such decisions. 429 A.2d at 781. The court in City of Scranton, further noted that Section 1 of Act 111, 48 P.S. § 217.1, limits the issues that are subject to mandatory bargaining and that Act 111 “does not remove all regulation [of policemen and firemen] from the scope of a municipality’s managerial decision-making, particularly any regulation which might be considered ‘essential for the proper and efficient functioning of a police [and fire] force.’” Id. [quoting Sharon v. Rose of Sharon Lodge, No. S, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 277, 315 A.2d 355, 358 (1973)]. Accordingly, this court concluded in City of Scranton that Act 111 does not remove from the employer’s managerial authority the total number of firemen on a force. Compare Appeal of City of Erie, 74 Pa. Cmwlth. 245, 459 A.2d 1320 (1983) . Subsequently, in City of Philadelphia v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that arbitration panel did not err in concluding that the number of firemen per rig constitutes a work condition rather than a matter of managerial prerogative and therefore was a proper subject of bargaining
B. holding that the district court did not err by compelling individual rather than class arbitration because the relevant agreements were silent as to class arbitration
C. holding that trial court did not err
D. holding that a district court did not err in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure due to his status as an alien subject to removal
E. holding that the number of rooms that housekeepers must clean is a mandatory subject of bargaining
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.