But that's not how English works. When you pull some words out of a sentence and exclude others, you often get another sentence with a different or nonsensical

But that's not how English works. When you pull some words out of a sentence and exclude others, you often get another sentence with a different or nonsensical meaning. It's "company must [ (1. voluntarily recognize union) or (2. hold election) ]". Choosing option 1 is voluntary because option 2, which you elided completely, exists and may be chosen instead. The "must", on the other hand, denotes the overarching mandate to select from the enumerated options. The part that the ruling the article is about changes is after that, BTW. The penalty for interfering with (2. hold election) is no longer a redo of the election, but rather imposed recognition of the union and a mandate to bargain with it. The previous penalty wasn't much of one and thus provided no deterrent for companies.