PROVIDENCE –– The contract dispute between Rhode Island’s Republican governor and its largest state employees’ union may span the next year.

That’s the word from Governor Carcieri’s legal team, which spent several hours shuffling from courtroom to courtroom yesterday as the case with substantial implications on the state budget and the paychecks of thousands of state workers trudged through Rhode Island’s legal system.

“This whole thing, once it’s all said and done, could take 12 months,” Carcieri deputy legal counsel Daniel Majcher argued in Superior Court yesterday, shortly before lawyers for the governor and Council 94, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, were sent to the Supreme Court three floors above.

The future of the case now rests with Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams.

The governor wants Williams to overrule Superior Court Judge Patricia Hurst, who again yesterday insisted that Carcieri cannot unilaterally impose higher health-care costs on nearly 5,000 state employees whose unions rejected a tentative four-year contract last month.

Williams met briefly with lawyers from both sides yesterday afternoon in his chambers. The group is scheduled to reconvene for another private meeting this morning at 11:30.

Hurst has ordered the case to the State Labor Relations Board to begin the process of mediation, conciliation and arbitration as outlined in state law. The seven-member panel won’t decide a course of action before its regularly scheduled Sept. 16 meeting.

Before the case was pushed to the Supreme Court yesterday, the governor’s legal team made a final pitch to Hurst, asking her to delay her order. They also asked her to force Council 94 to post a $5.8 million bond to cover potential savings lost by delaying benefit changes as the case bounces through the court system and labor relations board.

Majcher, the governor’s deputy legal counsel, told Hurst that resolutions historically take months in such cases, especially given that labor relations board decisions can be appealed to Superior Court. The governor’s office projected saving $10 million this year by increasing health-care co-shares among Council 94 workers, who represent roughly one-third of state government’s work force.

Hurst denied the governor’s requests.

“It’s incomprehensible to me it would take 12 months,” she said, noting that “it’s my intent to push the parties.” Hurst has ordered both sides to report progress with the labor relations board every two weeks.

Further, the judge said that Carcieri has “a myriad of lawful ways” to balance the budget aside from the health-care changes.

Carcieri, who did not comment yesterday, suggested earlier in the week that he would consider layoffs or forced unpaid days off as a remedy. But he characterized Hurst’s order as an “outrageous” attempt “to usurp the authority of the governor.”

Hurst, meanwhile, spoke publicly for the first time yesterday about the confusion that followed her complex Aug. 20 decision on the contract dispute that left organized labor and the governor’s office both claiming partial victory. She issued a “supplemental decision” Tuesday to clarify her original ruling.

“I thought the decision was crystal clear. 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 said. “I assumed that the governor would adhere to the law.”

She continued: “Within hours of my Aug. 20 decision, the governor publicly claimed victory in a press release. He also publicly announced his intention to take unilateral action…. The governor clearly misconstrued the import of my decision. 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.’ ”

The governor hopes that Williams will overrule Hurst, allowing the administration to force benefit changes on 4,842 state employees beginning with their Sept. 5 paychecks.

Data released by Carcieri’s office yesterday suggest that the new benefit structure — charging employees a percentage of their health-care premiums instead of a percentage of their salary — may work out well for some employees.

Around 20 percent of Council 94 workers would actually pay less for their health insurance coverage, according to an analysis by the governor’s budget office.

For example, more than 530 employees making $35,000 who elect an individual health insurance plan would save $100 this year under Carcieri’s plan. But the analysis shows that another 1,400 workers in the same income bracket who choose family plans would pay $1,159 more.

Both groups could save up to $500 each year by participating in a “wellness incentive program” that rewards workers by doing many things they already do, according to Carcieri spokeswoman Amy Kempe.

Those include having a primary care physician, being a nonsmoker or participating in a smoking cessation program, or other preventive screenings, she said.

speoples@projo.com