State workers won a round Wednesday after the state Supreme Court stopped a new law from taking effect that would have altered the way the unused sick leave is handled upon retirement.

"What this means for our clients, and for all state employees, is they don't have to retire by Friday to avail themselves of the benefits of the old program," said attorney Ben Hathaway, who is representing five unidentified state workers and the Utah Public Employees Association. "The pressure is off."

The sick leave change was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2006, and state law says workers must retire as of the first or 16th day of the month, according to Hathaway.

That means that employees who wanted to make use of the current program would have had to notify the state by today if they intended to begin their retirement Friday, said Jeff Herring, executive director of the state Department of Human Resources Management.

But with the high court's decision to stop the law from taking effect until the case can be heard, Herring said even those employees who have already given notice could stay on until the legal proceedings are settled.

"I don't think that we're going to force anybody out the door tomorrow if they want to continue working," Herring said. "We want to make it as fair to employees as possible."

The looming deadline has put considerable pressure on veteran employees who had to decide whether to take the existing retirement program, adjust to the new arrangement, or stay on the state payroll and fight implementation of the changes in court.

UPEA had asked for an injunction stopping the law from taking effect in 3rd District Court. But Judge William Barrett ruled that employees do not have a contract with the state until they are vested, which does not happen until they retire. So, any change in their benefit is not a breach of contract.

Also, because there is no contract, employees cannot claim their personal property is being taken, Barrett ruled.

UPEA had petitioned the high court Tuesday for emergency relief and the Supreme Court issued a two paragraph order late Wednesday stopping the law from going into effect "until final disposition of the appeal in this case."

"If the plaintiffs/petitioners do not prevail on the merits, the injunction will remain in place for at least 30 days after the issuance of this court's final disposition to permit the implementation of retirement options by eligible parties," the Supreme Court's order said.

An attorney for the state could not be reached for comment on the high court's decision.