Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 8(a)(3) of the Act. Finally, the record lacks substantial evidence to support a § 8(a)(5) violation. Section 8(a)(5) prohibits an employer from bypassing the union to bargain directly with employees. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5); Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 684, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007 (1944); Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 48 F.3d 1360, 1368 (4th Cir.1995). However, an employer is allowed to talk with employees and to communicate its position to them. Americare Pine Lodge Nursing & Rehab. Ctr. v. NLRB, 164 F.3d 867 (4th Cir.1999). The limit of these communications is offering a quid pro quo that is not before the union. Id. The employer’s § 8(a)(5)-duty is to present proposals to the union before communicating them to employees. See Ameri-care, 164 F.Sd at 876-77 . There is, however, no “rule requiring
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union
B. holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union
C. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
D. holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity
E. holding that an employer could only distribute its proposal to union employees when the proposal was properly before the union
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.