Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
had no statutory duty to bargain. The unions were nevertheless able to enforce interest arbitration clauses in expiring contracts. We also conclude that Local 666’s situation did not bar it from invoking interest arbitration. Specifically, we hold that although Stokes had no statutory duty to bargain because of its good faith doubt about the Union’s majority, it was not for that reason relieved of its contractual obligation to submit to interest arbitration. C. Stokes next argues that the Regional Director’s dismissal of its election petition was tantamount to a formal decertification by election, an event that would have ended the Union’s rights under the collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g., Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 316 F.2d 754, 757 (7th Cir.1963) . According to the Regional Director, he
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that employer overstepped its role when it refused to enter into written collective bargaining agreement because it believed unions entering the deal would violate union constitution
B. holding that a union may breach its duty of fair representation by rejecting an employees interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement if the unions interpretation is itself arbitrary or unreasonable
C. holding that unions were not entitled to specific performance of collective bargaining agreements after employees voted in boardsupervised elections to decertify the unions
D. holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights
E. holding that in the grievance representation context an employee must prove that the unions acts tainted the grievance procedure such that the outcome was more than likely affected by the unions breach internal citation and quotation omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.