I am reading Francis Borceux’s “Handbook of Categorical Algebra I” and on page 135 it says

In particular a finite version of 4.2.5 does not hold: a finitely complete and well-powered category certainly admits finite intersections of subobjects (see 4.2.3), but not in general finite unions of subobjects. Finite unions have been constructed in 4.2.5 using possibly infinite intersections. For a counterexample, just consider a ∧-semi-lattice with a top element which is not a lattice.

I get the argument for not being able to construct a union through finite intersection. But I have trouble proving it with the mentioned counterexample. Specifically, I can’t picture a “ ∧-semi-lattice with a top element which is not a lattice” in my mind. Why can’t the top element be the union for a finite set of elements if there is no other “better” element? Does the construction of this counterexample have anything to do with (in)finiteness?