With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hosp., 135 Mich.App. 361, 374, 354 N.W.2d 341 (1984). The Sixth Circuit has held that Section 301 of the LMRA preempts a state law claim of tortious interference with contractual relations where breach of the contract is a necessary element of the tor pears to be alleging claims of fraud and/or abuse of legal process. Plaintiff has premised these upon the manner in which defendant Health Management Systems of America and the union carried out the grievance procedures defined by the CBA. Counts II and III thus do not allege claims independent of the CBA. Such claims implicate both procedural and substantive aspects of the CBA grievance provisions, and thus also fall within Section 301 preemption under the LMRA. See Terwilliger v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 882 F.2d 1033, 1037 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In light of the foregoing, it is apparent

A: holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act
B: holding employees negligence claim against his employer was preempted by the lmra
C: holding that an employees state law claim against employer for breach of settlement agreement arrived at by virtue of grievance process established by the collective bargaining agreement was preempted by labor management relations act
D: holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement
A.