Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
failed to notify the Union before granting higher rates of pay to less senior members and did not mention the issue of obtaining the Union’s consent. Meanwhile, the Union argues that the grievance more broadly claimed a violation of Article 14 and that the issue of consent came up both during the arbitration hearing and in the parties’ post-hearing briefs. An arbitrator’s authority to decide issues extends only to the issues actually submitted. Matteson v. Ryder Sys., Inc., 99 F.3d 108, 114 (3d Cir.1996). We have cautioned against “attaching] too great significance to documents drafted early in the dispute,” such as the initial grievance, and observed that the issues to be decided are those reflected in the evidence and arguments of the parties at the arbitration hearing. Id. at 115 . In keeping with our standard of review, we
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an arbitrator stepped outside his authority when he decided an issue that had been focused on earlier in a grievance process but not in the final hearing
B. holding that the issue of whether contract which contained arbitration agreement was illegal should be properly decided by arbitrator not court
C. holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator
D. holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union
E. holding that the arbitrator was without jurisdiction to consider an issue which was not included in the written notice of arbitration and was added on the first day of the arbitration hearing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.