PROVIDENCE –– The legal battle between Governor Carcieri and state government’s largest union is growing more complex by the day.

Lawyers for both sides met for nearly an hour yesterday with Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Hurst, who had issued a 19-page ruling just five days earlier that left both the governor’s office and organized labor claiming partial victory.

At stake is the cost of health care for thousands of state workers and roughly $10 million the governor needs to balance the state budget.

Yesterday’s meeting in the judge’s chambers –– the second closed-door meeting in the last three business days –– produced no public resolution. Lawyers from the governor’s office and Council 94, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, refused to comment on the substance of the meeting.

But the lawyers expect the judge to issue a clarification as soon as this morning.

“She is preparing her final order. We had an excellent discussion today. The order will be issued in the next couple of days and she’s asked me not to comment any further,” the governor’s chief counsel, Kernan F. King, said as he walked away from reporters outside the courthouse.

It’s unclear, however, whether the clarification will affect the governor’s plans to force higher health-care costs on employees whose unions voted to reject a tentative four-year contract last month.

Hurst’s original ruling barred the administration from imposing the changes on those state employees who work in the General Assembly and the court system. But in the sharply worded ruling, which accuses the governor of thinking “he is above the law,” the judge said the state Labor Relations Board should decide whether the bulk of the union members must pay the higher fees.

Regardless of the criticism, the governor’s office saw the decision as a green light to force higher fees on 4,842 unionized workers, according to Carcieri spokesman Amy Kempe. The increased health-care costs –– applied as a percentage of employees’ premiums instead of a percentage of their salary –– will be reflected in the workers’ Sept. 5 paychecks.

Further, the governor will implement an additional retroactive deduction starting with workers’ Sept. 19 paychecks spread over the subsequent 10 pay periods to make up for a month of lost savings.

For example, an employee making $40,000 will contribute around $150 per month for a family health plan starting Sept. 5, according to Kempe. That worker will pay an additional $30 each month for the next five months (state workers are paid every two weeks).

While Carcieri’s office says it will push forward, the issue is far from settled.

Regardless of the contents of Hurst’s clarification, Council 94 has not yet officially asked the judge to stay, or block, the governor’s plans.

On her way out of the courtroom yesterday, Council 94 attorney Carly Beauvais Iafrate said she would consider requesting a stay only after seeing the judge’s clarification. A separate hearing for the stay could be scheduled for later in the week.

Council 94 representatives refused to comment further when reached later by phone.

And even as the case winds its way through Superior Court, the Labor Relations Boards is scheduled to review it next month. The board has a preliminary hearing scheduled for Sept. 10. A more detailed investigation could follow should the board determine it is warranted.

Continued delays, however, jeopardize roughly $10 million of savings that lawmakers included in the state budget signed by Carcieri in June.

Hurst blamed the budget implications on the governor:

“By allowing a deficit-burdened budget to become law while relying upon future revenues that he and the Legislature had dubious power to secure, the Governor embarked upon a perilous mission, fraught with constitutional and other legal difficulties that, unfortunately, may well cost the state more in time and litigation than it stood to gain,” she wrote.

speoples@projo.com