By JIM BARON

PROVIDENCE — The state's largest public employees' union, Council 94 AFSCME, was back in court Thursday, asking Judge Patricia Hurst to stay the decision she issued on Wednesday, and to continue halting the Carcieri administration from implementing an executive order that changes the way their health care co-pays are calculated.

After a 90-minute “status conference” in her chambers Thursday, Hurst made no decision but called on both sides to return to court on Monday to continue arguments.
On Wednesday, Hurst said Carcieri has the authority to impose the conditions on Council 94 members who work in the executive branch, but not on those who work for the legislature or the judiciary.
Carcieri made the rounds of several talk radio shows Thursday, saying he would begin deducting the higher co-pays during the next pay period, for which checks will be issued Sept. 5. The state will also deduct money from Council 94 members' paychecks retroactive to Aug. 8, but spokesperson Amy  Kempe said the administration is still working on how to do that and that the retroactive deductions will not begin on Sept. 5. Carcieri said the retroactive deductions will be spread over a period of time and will not be taken out of a single pay check.
Jim Cenerini, legislative affairs coordinator for Council 94, said the union will wait for the judge to render a decision on their request before making comment. They had also requested that Hurst “clarify” the order she issued Wednesday.
After months of talks between the Carcieri administration and state labor leaders, including officers of Council 94, a memorandum of settlement on a set of new contracts was reached and taken back to the various union locals for ratification. While many unions approved the agreement, Council 94 members overwhelmingly rejected the plan and its leaders asked to start formal negotiations.
Carcieri said he would not resume talks with Council 94 and the other unions that rejected the package, saying that there had been months of negotiations, and moved to terminate the contract with Council 94. The governor issued an executive order imposing the terms of the settlement on Council 94 members and the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the state and asked Hurst to stay the executive order while the complaint was being heard by the state Labor Relations Board.
Hurst's Wednesday decision rejected that request as it applied to Council 94's executive branch employees.
In a written statement Thursday, Cenerini said, “Council 94 intends to pursue all legal remedies available to protect the state employees from unilateral changes in their health care premiums.”