OPINION OF THE COURT
Pursuant to section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act” or “NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) (1976), the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) has petitioned this court for enforcement of its order issued on September 30, 1981. 1 In its decision accompanying that order the Board held that the Cardox Division of the Chemetron Corporation (“Company”) had violated sections 8(aXl) and 8(a)(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (a)(5) (1976), by refusing to bargain with and by withdrawing exclusive recognition of Teamsters Union Local No. 115 (“Union” or “Local 115”). The Board failed, however, to determine under section 9(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159(b) (1976), whether the bargaining unit identified by the parties was an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes. For that reason we will deny the Board’s application for enforcement and will remand this action to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTS
A.
The Cardox Division of the Chemetron Corporation is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of carbon dioxide. The Company operates approximately fifty *150 separate facilities located throughout the United States, including ten manufacturing plants and forty distribution depots. The present controversy arises within the Company’s “Eastern Region” which covers the northeastern portion of the United States from the Virginia-North Carolina state line to the Canadian border.
The Company has four regional servicemen in the Eastern Region, each assigned to a designated field service area. These servicemen are Charles Pennington, whose service area includes Virginia, Maryland, and a small part of southern Pennsylvania; James Hurley, whose service area includes eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and all of Delaware; Richard Gerber, whose service area includes Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut, and the metropolitan New York-Newark area; and Tom Shane, whose service area includes eastern upstate New York, Maine, central New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and a portion of Connecticut. The servicemen work from their homes, primarily answering customers’ calls in their service areas. Their work assignments, however, are not limited to their particular assigned service areas, and they are frequently assigned to other areas on a temporary basis.
All four servicemen are paid on a salaried basis and have an identical package of fringe benefits. They are supervised solely by Bernard O’Reilly, the Company’s Service Manager for the Eastern Region. He approves their weekly time sheets and expense accounts, authorizes overtime, schedules their vacations, and handles their grievances. Although the servicemen are responsible for installing and maintaining equipment at some of the Company’s distribution depots, the depot managers have no authority to direct their hours or work schedule.
B.
On June 19 and July 2,1979, respectively, servicemen Pennington and Hurley signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. On August 14 two Union representatives met with Dick Wyatt, the Company’s Delaware City, Delaware depot manager. They presented him with a letter and recognition agreement and requested that the Company recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the field servicemen employed at the facility. 2 Wyatt read the letter, personally checked the authorization cards, and then signed the recognition agreement. The agreement was sent to John Manning, the Company’s Director of Employee Relations, who, after making some minor modifications, executed the agreement on August 27, 1979. The unit recognized within the agreement consisted of “field servicemen not included in any other bargaining unit and excluding guards, office clerical and supervisors as defined in the Act, employed by the Employer at [its Delaware City, Delaware] facility.” App. 263a-64a.
After some initial correspondence the parties held their first bargaining session on October 17, 1979, but failed to reach an agreement on a contract. A second meeting was later scheduled for December 5, 1979.
Sometime in November, Pennington informed O’Reilly that he no longer wanted to be represented by the Union. Pennington testified that he changed his mind because of a dispute with the union over whether he should work while another union, Teamsters Local 326, was out on strike. At about the same time Pennington began receiving his phone calls at the Company’s Suffolk, Virginia depot instead of at Dela *151 ware City. 3 When O’Reilly informed Hurley of Pennington’s decision about the Union, Hurley also decided that he no longer wanted to be represented by Local 115.
A few days before the bargaining session scheduled for December 5, Manning first learned that Pennington and Hurley had advised their supervisor that they no longer wanted to be represented by the Union and that Pennington was now receiving his phone calls at the Suffolk depot. After discussing the matter with counsel, Manning requested that O’Reilly obtain from both Pennington and Hurley confirmation in writing that they no longer desired to be represented by Local 115. In addition, Manning called the attorney for the Union and canceled the December 5 meeting. On December 6 Manning wrote a letter to the Union stating that only one employee, Hurley, now worked in its jurisdictional area 4 and thus “there does not seem to be any reason to cover him under a Local 115 agreement.” A few days later the Company received the requested letters from Pennington and Hurley indicating their intention to withdraw from the Union.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Company on December 12, 1979. On January 30, 1980, the General Counsel issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging that the Company had violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the Act by withdrawing exclusive recognition of the Union on December 6, 1979. 5 In its answer the Company denied that it had committed any unfair labor practices.
A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on July 10, 1980. At that hearing the Company argued that the unit identified by the parties in the voluntary recognition agreement was inappropriate because Pennington and Hurley lacked a community of interest distinct from that of the other servicemen. Alternatively the Company argued that the unit was inappropriate because it had been reduced in size to a single employee by December 6. Finally, the Company asserted that, even if the agreed upon unit was appropriate, at the time it withdrew recognition the Union no longer represented either of the two employees who comprised the purported unit. On September 24,1980, the ALJ issued a decision in which he accepted the Company’s argument that the agreed upon bargaining unit was inappropriate because it did not include all four field servicemen in the Company’s Eastern Region. Finding an “overwhelming showing of community of interest,” the ALJ held that it was inappropriate to carve out from the four servicemen any unit of less than four. App. at 20a-21a. Having found the unit inappropriate, the AU reasoned that the Company could not be held to have violated section 8(a)(5) of the Act and thus recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 6 The AU did not reach the merits of the Company’s other defenses.
On October 16, 1980, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the AU’s decision with the Board. The Company filed an answering brief but did not file any cross-exceptions to the findings of the ALJ.
On September 30, 1981, the Board issued a decision and order in which it found that the Company had violated sections 8(a)(1)
*152
and 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Having disposed of the Company’s argument that the unit was inappropriate, the Board then addressed the Company’s contention that it could withdraw recognition on December 6 because the Union no longer enjoyed the support of the two employees in the unit. The Board determined that, because a reasonable time for bargaining had not expired, the Union continued to enjoy an irrebuttable presumption of majority status when the Company withdrew recognition. Thus the Board held that the Company’s refusal to bargain violated section 8(a)(1) and section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
On October 23,1981, the Company filed a “Motion for Reconsideration, Reopening of the Record and for Stay of Board Decision and Order.” App. at 37a. The Company asked the Board to reconsider its decision and to review new evidence on whether the agreed upon unit had been permanently reduced to a single employee, if not prior to the time recognition was withdrawn, at least since the time of the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge in July 1980. 9 On February 4, 1981, the Board denied the Company’s motion as “lacking in merit.” This action for enforcement followed.
DISCUSSION
I.
In asking this court to deny enforcement of the Board’s order, the Company asserts that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by refusing to make a unit determination as required by section 9(b) of the Act. The Company argues that absent such a determination, the Board had no statutory authority to find that the Company committed unfair labor practices under sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5). Furthermore, the Company contends that the unit identified in the voluntary recognition agreement is in fact inappropriate because (1) the unit consists of only two of the four field servicemen in the Company’s Eastern Region and thus represents an arbitrary grouping, or (2) the unit has been permanently reduced to one employee and thus contravenes established Board policy. 10
*153
In response the Board asserts that voluntary recognition agreements are “a favored element of national labor policy,”
NLRB v. Broadmoor Lumber Co.,
II.
Section 9(b) of the NLRA states in relevant part:
The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employee unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof.
29 U.S.C. § 159(b) (1976) (emphasis added). Although under that provision the Board has broad discretion when making a unit determination,
12
the section’s language expressly requires that the Board make a decision “in each case.”
Big Y Foods, Inc. v. NLRB,
*154
In
Memorial Hospital of Roxborough v. NLRB,
Congress has ... mandated Board determination “in each case” of “the unit appropriate” for collective bargaining. Thus the statute requires the Board to exercise its discretion as to an appropriate unit in each and. every case. This responsibility can neither be delegated to nor discharged by a state agency where Congress has sought to create a national labor policy by vesting this discretion in a national labor board. La Crosse Telephone Corp. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board,336 U.S. 18 , 24-27,69 S.Ct. 379 [382-383],93 L.Ed. 463 (1948). Here, however, the Board abdicated its required duty by accepting the [state agency’s] determination without exercising its own mandated discretion. In so doing the Board “overstep[ped] the law.” Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, [330 U.S. 485 ,] 491,67 S.Ct. 789 , 793,91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947)].
Roxborough,
Our reasoning in Roxborough applies with equal force in the instant case. Section 9(b) requires the Board to exercise its discretion and determine that the unit agreed upon by the parties is an appropriate unit for bargaining purposes. The Board can not simply defer to a voluntary agreement entered into by an employer and a union without making any assessment that the unit identified within the agreement is proper. To do so oversteps the law. 14
We do not think that our decision in
International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. NLRB,
But to concede that point is not to say that every unit composed of professionals and non-professionals originally formed without a separate election is invalid forever. Though section 9(b)(1) prohibits the Board from designating a mixed unit without holding the requisite election of professionals, nothing in the language of the Act prohibits the relevant parties from maintaining and recognizing such a unit consensually. Retail Clerks Union Local 324 (Vincent Drugs), 1963,144 N.L.R.B. 1247 . In our view such a consensual arrangement is presented here.
III.
We recognize that the fact that the parties have entered into a voluntary agreement changes the nature of the Board’s inquiry under section 9(b). As we stated in Roxborough:
[W]here the parties have stipulated to the appropriateness of a unit, the Board limits its review to determining that the unit *156 does “not contravene the provisions or purposes of the Act [NLRA] or well settled Board policies.” Otis Hospital, Inc.,219 NLRB No. 55 (1975). See also St. Joseph Hospital & Medical Center,219 NLRB No. 161 (1975).
Roxborough,
Our reading of the statute is consistent with the Act’s underlying purpose of protecting the interests of all employees, as well as the interests of unions and employers. Review of voluntary recognition agreements by the Board prevents employers and unions from mistakenly agreeing to a unit which does not adequately protect the rights of all the workers in the workplace. Review also prevents a union and an employer, through a voluntary agreement, from manipulating the scope and composition of a bargaining unit for their own purposes.
Cf. NLRB v. St. Luke’s Hospital Center,
This court recognizes the value of voluntary recognition agreements in the collective bargaining process. We also adhere to the basic policy that a company and a union must be held to their agreements if those agreements are consistent with the Act.
See NLRB v. Lyon & Ryan Ford, Inc.,
Because the Board did not exercise its discretion as required by section 9(b), it acted outside its authority under the NLRA in issuing a bargaining order to the Company. Accordingly we will deny enforcement and will remand this action to the Board to determine whether the unit agreed upon by the parties is appropriate in light of the requirements of the Act and settled Board policy. 18
Notes
. The Board’s decision and order is reported at
. As of August 1979 both Hurley and Pennington had certain regularized contact with the Company’s Delaware City facility. Those contacts consisted of: (1) being classified as working out of the Delaware City depot for the purposes of governmental reports as well as internal personnel files; (2) purchasing parts and tools utilizing credit established by the facility; (3) receiving telephone messages from the facility; and (4) visiting the facility periodically to pick up billing invoices or parts for use in their work, and to straighten up the parts room.
. This change was suggested by O’Reilly because the Delaware City facility had been closed down by the Local 326 strike. O’Reilly testified that he made his suggestion not to remove Pennington from the union’s jurisdiction, but rather to prevent him from quitting the Company. App. at 174a-48a.
. Manning testified that he understood the Union’s jurisdictional area to be the Wilmington, Camden, and Philadelphia area.
. The complaint also charged that the Company had violated the Act by failing to bargain in good faith with the Union from August 27, 1979. In its decision the Board did not address this issue nor has it been raised before us in this application for enforcement.
. App. at 17a, 21a (citing
United Mine Workers,
. App. at 17a-18a.
. The Board stated: “To the extent that
The Duluth Glass Block Store Company,
. The Company argued that since late 1979, there had been a substantial increase in Pennington’s contacts with the Suffolk facility due to the increase in the volume of business in the area served by the Suffolk distribution depot. During the same period Pennington’s contacts with the Delaware facility had dropped off substantially. In a sworn affidavit Pennington stated that from July 1980 to October 1981 his only contact with the Delaware City depot had been three phone calls. The Company argued that “[b]ased on the evidence already contained in the record, as well as that set forth in Pennington’s sworn affidavit, it is perfectly clear that regardless of whatever tenuous connections might have existed between Pennington and the Delaware City facility at the time of voluntary recognition, those connections have since been permanently severed and by no stretch of the imagination can he now be considered as included in a unit of servicemen employed ‘at’ Delaware City.” App. at 44a.
. In its brief the Board argues that under § 10(e) of the Act, the Company is precluded from raising the one-man unit issue before us because of its failure properly to raise the issue before the Board. Section 10(e) of the Act provides:
No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, shall be considered by the Court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.
*153 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) (1976). The ALJ did not reach the one-man unit issue. The Board argues that because the Company did not raise the one-man unit issue by filing cross-exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, it is now barred from raising that issue before us.
Although not necessary to our disposition of this case, we feel that the one-man unit issue is properly raised before us. The purpose of § 10(e) is to insure against piecemeal appeals to the courts by requiring that the parties first give the Board an opportunity to rule upon all material issues in a case.
NLRB v. GAIU Local 13-B,
. In its brief, the Board distinguishes voluntary recognition cases from representation proceedings under § 9. 29 U.S.C. § 159 (1976). In the latter proceedings the Board is asked to define an appropriate unit, to direct an election, or to certify the results of an election previously held. In the instant case, however, the Board argues “such Section 9 proceedings were obviated because the parties themselves voluntarily reached agreement concerning the boundaries of an appropriate bargaining unit. Rather, the case arose in an unfair labor practice case presenting the issue of whether the employer was free ... to repudiate its own agreement concerning the appropriateness of the bargaining unit.” Brief of the National Labor Relations Board at 17-18.
.
Allied Chemical Alkali Workers of America v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.,
.
Roxborough
involved a dispute arising after passage of the 1974 amendments to the NLRA. Act of July 26, 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-360, 88 Stat. 395. Prior to 1974 the rights of non-profit hospital employees to organize and bargain collectively were matters of state law. The 1974 amendments, however, brought non-profit hospitals and their employees within the coverage of the NLRA and made them subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
. In the analogous setting involving consent elections under § 9(c)(4) of the Act, the courts have continually held that the Board is not bound to the terms of the parties’ unit stipulation if those “terms violate statutes or national labor policy.”
Cappa v. Wiseman,
. In
Leedom v. Kyne
the Supreme Court held that the Board acted outside of its statutory power when it included within a unit both professional and non-professional employees without determining whether a majority of the professional employees would “vote for inclusion in such [a] unit,” 29 U.S.C. § 159(b)(1) (1976).
. The Board cites to
Osteopathic Hospital Founders Association v. NLRB,
We also do not find persuasive the other cases cited by the Board in support of its position that it is not required to make a unit determination in the instant case. For example in
Lyon & Ryan Ford, Inc.,
In
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.,
. Section 8(a)(5) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this tide.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) (1976) (emphasis added). Section 9(a) states: “Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.” 29 U.S.C. § 159(a) (1976) (emphasis added).
. We make no finding concerning the appropriateness of the unit originally agreed to by the parties in the instant case. On remand we would, of course, expect compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in
NLRB v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,