BURRILLVILLE — School officials prepared for a legal battle with the local teachers’ union yesterday after the union called a strike that blocked the opening of school.

Against a gloomy backdrop of stalled contract negotiations, the schools’ lawyers asked Superior Court in Providence to order the teachers back to the classrooms, arguing that their strike is a clear violation of state law and an “intentional and concerted effort designed to impair the normal operation of the Burrillville School District….”

The lawyers’ complaint set the stage for a hearing before Judge Netti C. Vogel at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Meanwhile, students in Burrillville looked forward to an extended summer vacation, and more than a few working parents scrambled to find people to look after their school-age children during the delay.

The parking lot at the high school was mostly empty even though the sign out front said “Welcome Back All! 8/29.”

Some parents thought the district should be more flexible with the union. Others, such as Julie Baker, a bus monitor, said the teachers should come to grips with increasingly common contract provisions that ask employees to pay for part of their health-care coverage.

“Why should they be any different?” asked Baker, who was up early with her daughters yesterday before she learned that opening day was canceled.

The teachers gathered at a Lincoln theater in the morning to mull their options, and the School Department put a hold on all sports practices and games prior to the opening of school.

“We’re just calling a time out and we’ll resume as soon as the teachers are back,” said schools Supt. Steven Welford, who deflected almost all questions about the situation to lawyer Benjamin M. Scungio.

The schools did not announce any timeline that would give parents and students an idea as to when school might open.

But the district’s legal complaint painted a bleak picture, asserting that the strike “is one of indefinite duration and there appears no reasonable prospect for the successful resolution of the differences between the parties … unless an injunction is issued.” The word “indefinite” was underlined.

The complaint also says both sides “remain significantly apart in their respective positions on several important issues and a resolution does not appear achievable in the reasonably foreseeable future…. ”

Still, the complaint also suggests that the school year can begin almost as soon as Vogel orders it.

Patrick Crowley, a spokesman for the teachers’ union, said yesterday that teachers would comply with an order to return to work.

Crowley wasn’t surprised by the sharp language that the school district is using in court, saying that the legal complaint is a “very typical” initial response to a strike and “while it may sound inflammatory it really is just a legal position that they are trying to attach themselves to.”

Written by schools’ lawyer Ronald F. Cascione, the complaint accuses the members of the Burrillville Teachers Association of voting to “engage in an illegal strike.”

The strike was designed to impede the operation of the district and to frustrate the union’s negotiations with the School Committee, including a formal mediation process, according to the complaint.

Without appropriate interference from the court, says the complaint, the union’s actions will cause “irreparable harm” to the people of the school district by depriving children of education.

The loss of that education will affect low-income children who need free lunch and breakfast programs, the complaint says. The loss also will touch certain children who benefit from health-care services provided by the school, it says.

It will force the district to incur significant expenses due to the loss of perishable goods and certain transportation services.

In addition to the injunction, the School Committee’s court complaint asks the judge to compensate the district for expenses it incurs due to the strike.

It also asked the court to award punitive damages as a way of penalizing the union for “intentional, willful and flagrantly illegal acts.…”

For the most part, Scungio and Crowley have declined to discuss the individual sticking points that have locked up negotiations. Both sides have made vague references to health-care copays, class-size limits, and the roles of teachers.

Both have also asserted that the leveling of state economic aid has vastly complicated the job of compensating teachers everywhere.

Meanwhile, Scungio said the new law that caps the amount of money towns can raise through taxes leaves the district with little money that it can budget for teachers.

Burrillville’s tax levy can increase by only about $1 million in the current fiscal year, he said.

“It presents financial problems that you didn’t really have before,” he said.

“What they’re seeking,” he added, “is beyond the means of Burrillville to provide it.”

mreynold@projo.com