solution

 Honeyville Grain processes and distributes food products, and it employs truck drivers to deliver its products. Local 166 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, petitioned the NLRB for an election in a unit of Honeyville’s full-time and part-time truck drivers. The Board conducted a secret-ballot election. All 32 eligible voters cast ballots: 23 voted in favor of the union, 7 voted against the union, and 2 ballots were challenged. Honeyville, however, objected to comments made in a meeting held at the union’s office 5 days before the election, which 20 to 25 of the drivers attended. Union agents made disparaging comments about Honeyville management’s Mormon religious views, and asserted that the owners gave money to the Mormon Church instead of sharing it with the workers. The religious remarks were made at 1 of about 10 union meetings held prior to the election. A regional director of the Board investigated Honeyville’s objections to the election. After the hearing, the hearing officer recommended that the Board overrule the objection about the religious remarks and certify the union. The Board adopted the recommendations and certified the union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for Honeyville’s drivers. After the certification, Honeyville refused to bargain with the union. The union filed charges with the Board. The Board’s general counsel then issued a complaint alleging that Honeyville had refused to bargain collectively with the union, in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA. Honeyville filed an answer, reasserting its objections to the certification. The Board concluded that Honeyville violated the act by its admitted refusal to bargain with the union. Honeyville petitioned for review. Was Honeyville legally allowed to refuse to acknowledge the union certification because of the potentially inflammatory religious comments? Honeyville Grain, Inc. v. NLRB, 444 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006).