Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rather than opinions. As we said in Dayco Corp. v. NLRB, 382 F.2d 577, 579 (6th Cir.1967), “[a] single sentence contained in a letter or speech of an employer, cannot be considered apart from the entire statement and background in which it was made.” HCEA places great weight on one sentence from the letter, where Stewart, after explaining that PECCA removes principals and assistant principals from the collaborative conferencing unit, stated, “I trust this information will be shared appropriately with any HCDE administrators who inquire about remaining members of [HCEA].” While this statement could conceivably be read as a command in other contexts, here the full text of the letter confirms that Stewart’s statement is a request rather than an order. Notab 2d 1006, 1008 (5th Cir.1969) . Third, HCEA contends that the district court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where contract does not authorize employers selective discharge of union officials discharge violates section 8a3
B. holding that threatening to discipline employees for not reporting union solicitation violated  8a1
C. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union
D. holding that threatening to discharge union secretary for presenting employee grievances violated  8a1
E. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.