APate - isn’t it interesting how things are ‘read’ differently dependent upon individual mindset?
I took Julie’s summary to suggest that CHC were ‘winning’ contracts using unrealistic rates - this is nothing new -hence the phrase a ‘Loss Leader’. I then surmised that this practice might have been too widely used, leading to Chapter 11 Protection.
On a personal level - I saw how CHC managed the process and probably spent more on legal fees than they would have had to pay out if they accepted their responsibilities in the first place.
From my subsequent in-depth reading of UK Employment Law at the time - there is little chance of TUPE applying if a contract has run its course, ie ended, expired or ‘endex’. There is a greater chance if the contract changed provider part way through.
Mute point as I discovered that the protection that TUPE is meant to offer is only relevant if you are willing to fight your corner or if it’s suits the bean counters.
Please do not embarrass yourself further by suggesting that CHC behaved in anyway decently in the process.