Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Workers Union of New Jersey, Local 827 v. New Jersey Bell Tel. Co., 584 F.2d 31, 33-34 (3d Cir.1978); Burmah Oil Tankers v. Trisun Tankers, 687 F.Supp. 897, 899 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Hudson-Berlind Corp. v. Local 807, Affiliated with the Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 597 F.Supp. 1282, 1285-86 (E.D.N.Y.1984). Cases which have refused to apply issue preclusion to arbitrators have done so because the requirements for issue preclusion were not met. See, e.g., W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union No. 759, Int’l Union of the United Rubber Workers, 461 U.S. 757, 765, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 2183, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983) (refusing to apply res judicata where arbitrator’s earlier award had exceeded his authority); McGraw Edison, Wagner Div. v. Local 1104, Int’l Union of Elec. Workers, 767 F.2d 485, 489 (8th Cir. 1985) . We recognize that the arbitrator had the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union
B. recognizing that consent decrees have a dual character that of contract and that of judicial decree subjecting them to different treatment for different purposes
C. recognizing that the legislature would not generally use a different meaning for the same word in a legislative provision unless a different purpose was intended
D. holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute
E. holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.