With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Notice of Class Certification stated that “any final arbitration award, whether for or against the Defendants, [would] apply to” the Retirees and the Survivors. In ordering the class certification as such under Rule 23(b)(2), the district court precluded the class members’ ability to pursue their ERISA rights, as well as any other claims, directly with Cooper. In Cleveland Electric, we recognized two dangers in failing to require a union to obtain retirees’ consent before arbitrating on their behalf. See Cleveland Elec., 440 F.3d at 817. First, employers could be faced with numerous retirees’ claims and lawsuits if a determination is made that the Union was not authorized to act on the retirees’ behalf. See id. (citing Meza v. General Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262, 1280 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>)). Second, retirees could lose their rights to

A: holding that an injured former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata where he never authorized the union to represent his interest in a previous lawsuit over the same benefits
B: holding that res judicata barred a claim that had been voluntarily abandoned in a previous litigation
C: holding first lawsuit and allegations in second lawsuit part of same transaction for res judicata purposes even though different theory of recovery and harm alleged in second lawsuit
D: holding that former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata by unions prior suit where employee was not a party to the prior suit as a former union member was not in privity with the union and never authorized the union to represent his interest in prior suit
A.