In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: 1337(a). Section 1337 provides jurisdiction for fair representation suits because the duty of fair representation derives from the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), and the NLRA is an "Act of Congress regulating commerce." Breininger, 493 U.S. at 83, 110 S.Ct. at 434 (citations omitted). In this context, the "fair representation claim is a separate cause of action from any possible suit against the employer." See id. at 84, 110 S.Ct. at 435. In Breininger, for example, the employee alleged that the union represented him unfairly by refusing to refer him to potential employers. The union's breach did not implicate a collective bargaining agreement. See id. at 71-72, 110 S.Ct. at 427-29. See also Storey v. Local 327, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 759 F.2d 517, 523 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, 301 and 1337 provide different
Holding statements: (A) holding that the statute of limitations applicable to a section 301 suit was the same as that which applies to suits against an employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement (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 1337 provides the jurisdictional basis for fair representation suits where no collective bargaining agreement exists (D) holding that a debtorinpossession could reject a collective bargaining agreement (E) holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union
A:
holding that the statute of limitations applicable to a section 301 suit was the same as that which applies to suits against an employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement