The state's chief federal judge refused Wednesday to stop the state of Minnesota from negotiating a contract with newly unionized home health care workers, saying it was unlikely union opponents will win their case in court.

In his 25-page ruling, District Judge Michael Davis denied a request for an expedited injunction sought by the National Right to Work Foundation. The injunction, he said, would delay implementation of a state law that was passed by the Legislature "after full debate" and would constitute "an unwarranted intrusion" by the federal government and judiciary into the state's affairs.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) won an election on Aug. 26 to represent the state's 27,000 home health care workers, the largest successful union campaign in Minnesota since passage of the federal Wagner Act in 1935. Some 5,800 workers voted, and 60 percent opted to join the union.

Attorneys for the Right to Work Foundation, an anti-union organization headquartered in Virginia, sought the injunction to prevent the state from negotiating a contract with the SEIU. The foundation maintains that the First Amendment rights of home care workers who oppose the union are being violated.

A member of the SEIU's leadership team applauded Davis' ruling Wednesday.

"I am really excited because he ruled in our favor and that means we can go ahead and bargain," said Darlene Gray, a 25-year-old home health care worker from Apple Valley.

The Right to Work Foundation is exploring its options, which include asking the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Davis' decision.

"To have the state impose a state-selected representative, the SEIU, on home care providers who don't voluntarily support the union is a clear violation of Minnesota home care providers' freedom of association," said Patrick Semmens, vice president of the foundation.

The foundation had sought an injunction to block the August election. Davis ruled then that the request was premature. After the union vote succeeded, the foundation renewed its request for an injunction to prevent negotiations.

Timely, but not likely to win

On Wednesday, Davis ruled that the lawsuit was no longer premature, but the foundation was unlikely to prevail, based on prior court decisions, because it cannot show that the First Amendment rights of workers are being violated or that they will face irreparable harm.

Workers aren't required to join the union or pay dues, and their right to speak out is not restricted, Davis wrote.

"At this early stage, the state has certainly demonstrated a rational basis for its desire to negotiate with one entity that represents the majority of home care providers," he wrote.

"Not only is this system logistically more efficient for the state and could rationally be believed to be an effective manner to determine the concerns of most home care providers, but also the state has provided the sworn statement of Charles E. Johnson [state Human Services deputy commissioner], as setting forth a rational basis for the state's position that the [law] and certification of an exclusive representative will improve the relevant programs."

Davis also signaled his view that the bargaining process is a positive development.

"The public has a strong interest in improving the home care program by reducing turnover, attracting more qualified providers, and ultimately, enabling better home-based care to individuals with disabilities and the elderly," Davis wrote.

Ruling is 'crystal clear'

Peter Rachleff, a retired labor history professor at Macalester College, said Davis' decision was "crystal clear that the unionization of health care providers is legal, and there are no grounds left in court to block this unionization."

Rachleff noted that last year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an Illinois case that home health care workers have the right to organize, but workers can choose not to join because they are not fully public employees. Nor are they required to pay dues.

He said the SEIU in Minnesota did not seem discouraged that workers can opt out and not pay dues. "They seem to be eager to build the kind of union that workers will want to belong to," he said.

Semmens lamented that the union could win with only 5,800 of about 27,000 home care workers voting.

"While the SEIU should be free to represent and speak on behalf of voluntary SEIU members, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota instead enjoys exclusive bargaining representation over all of the state's providers even though only a tiny fraction of them actually supported the union," he said.

Gov. Mark Dayton, who supports the union drive, was pleased with the ruling, his spokesman Matt Swenson said in an e-mail.

"The governor has said from the very beginning that the people providing home health care should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to form a union. He is delighted that the federal court's decision today will allow that effort to continue."