Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of unconscionability based upon the UCC is preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. In Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the policies underlying § 301 “require that the relationships created by a collective bargaining agreement be defined by application of an evolving federal common law grounded in national labor policy,” so that “questions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed, and wha l Union of North America, 2 Fed.Appx. 157, 160 (2d Cir.2001) (“Section 301 of the [LMRA] confers jurisdiction in the federal courts for ‘[s]uits] for violation of contracts between ... labor organizations.’ Such suits based upon the terms of union constitutions fall within the sweep of § 301.”) (citation omitted) . While “[t]he principles for deciding when a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
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 that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation
D. recognizing union members vital concern in preserving jobs for union members
E. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.