By JIM BARON

PROVIDENCE — The increasingly acrimonious legal battle between Governor Carcieri and the largest union representing state workers is now being fought at the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the state and Council 94 AFSCME met with Chief Justice Frank Williams for about 40 minutes on Wednesday, but left with no decisions being made or orders issued.
Carcieri was asking for a stay of Tuesday’s “supplemental decision” from Superior Court Judge Patricia Hurst prohibiting the governor from implementing an executive order that redesigns the health care benefit plan for Council 94 members, in most cases resulting in higher co-pays being charged.
The governor’s lawyers had gone to the high court first thing in the morning, but were told they had to request a stay from Hurst before the Supreme Court would take up the matter. That gave the judge a third chance to hammer Carcieri’s position.
“The Governor clearly misconstrued the import of my (original) decision,” Hurst said Wednesday according to a court transcript. “I tried to clarify it for him yesterday. Obviously, to no avail. He is here today still seeking permission to implement the executive order. For the third time the answer is ‘no.’"
Carcieri’s July 31 executive order imposes the benefit plan changes and co-pay increases on Council 94 members, even though the rank and file overwhelmingly rejected the contract settlement proposal worked out with the administration that contained those changes. Other unions ratified the changes – requiring employees to co-pay a percentage of the health care premiums, rather than a percentage of their income, which they did under the previous contract -- and are having the new co-pays deducted from their paychecks.
The union took the governor to court, saying he could not impose changes in benefits that had not been negotiated and agreed to by the union.
Hurst issued a decision preventing Carcieri from implementing the order on employees of the legislature and judiciary, but appearing to give him the green light to force the co-pays on the bulk of the union members who work in the executive branch. Carcieri declared victory in a press release, announcing he would start deducting the higher co-pays from workers wages and do it retroactively to make up for the pay period lost while the matter was in court. But the union went back to Hurst the next day seeking a clarification of the ruling and on Tuesday she issued the order explicitly forbidding him to implement the order at all until the state and Council 94 have the union’s unfair labor process charge heard by the state Labor Relations Board.
“The governor appeared here this morning, through his attorneys, without having prepared a written motion for stay,” the judge scolded “I adjourned to give the parties an opportunity to prepare the required judgment and motions. I accepted handwritten originals.”
Hurst said the “over-arching question posed by the Governor in this case has been whether his powers as chief executive supercede or trump the labor relations statutes of this state and other principles of labor law. ‘Supercede’ and ‘trump’ are not words selected by this court to characterize the Governor's arguments. These are words he used in his papers filed with the court.”
Hurst said she responded to that question in her original Aug. 20 decision, noting that, the Governor is bound by the state's laws, including the labor relations laws. I don't think I could have said it more clearly.”
Hurst also rejected the state’s request that the court require Council 94 to post a bond for the money that would have been collected through the higher co-pay deductions, should her decision be overturned.
“Whether or not security should be required is within the discretion of this court,” she said, “and, here, I see no need for security. The state has a myriad of lawful ways to raise funds.”
Neither side would comment on the meeting with Williams except to say that it would resume today.