All of the below are facts:
The road show cometh - April.
Those who apply to Bristows and get offered a slot through the managed transition route will have their PVR tailored to their needs. It will mean their pension will be ringfenced.
Those who circumvent the MT, resign and then get offered a job will not have their pension ringfenced.
New rules coming out regarding ringfenced pensions, in.......wait for it...............June :ugh:

TUPE:

When does TUPE apply?
Service provision change
• When an activity currently done by MOD in-house is outsourced to a contractor.
• When a contract for an activity that is currently performed by one contractor is re-competed and is won by another contractor,
• When an activity is being performed by a contractor, but MOD makes a decision to undertake the activity in-house, (in MOD). Inward TUPE.
• Transfer of a function from one part of the public sector to another, where there is a change of employer, (Eg:transfer between MOD and a NHS Trust).

When does TUPE not have to be considered?
• Transfers of assets only.
• The contract is to provide goods only and does not contain any service element.
• Reorganisation and transfers between central government departments and agencies (i.e. within the Civil Service) as there is no change of employer.

Who decides if TUPE applies?
In outsourcing projects, in line with Government policy, MOD will give a view on the application of TUPE in the contracts information issued to companies competing for the contract. Unless there are exceptional circumstances this will normally be that TUPE should apply. Bidders may agree with the MOD’s view or offer an alternative view that takes account of the way they propose to deliver the services required. As the
contracting authority, MOD may accept a bidder’s proposal that would mean that TUPE did not apply, but there would need to be a robust case to justify that the delivery solution offered better value for money than any other options when all costs had been taken in to account.


All the below are "for discussion":
100/250hrs on type and how and where these hours will be accumulated.
Allocated bases cannot be guaranteed. You cannot elect to work at a designated base.

For 'mil' crews, I would suggest: "Hold fast"....let the MT take the strain...this has been a long long time in the making. Bristow cannot afford to fail.:suspect:

Rats from a sinking ship?
 

Love to see the crab fats shifting sideways at high speed now the ink has dried. The years of slagging off the civilian SAR to now be faced with the prospect of becoming one, has most of us in fits of laughter:}

Reality check complete...:{

1. Get your licence sorted.
2. Get your CV in to 'BRISTOW' helicopters.
3. Impress the selection team with your ability to play nicely.
4. Wait your turn for Command if you have to.
5. Mil to Civ TUPE doesn't apply....sorry crab, no private schooling, golden pension etc, etc.
6. Sumburgh & Stornoway will grow on you, most of the current team did time there too:ok:

TUPE
 

TC

From a little further down the document:

Does TUPE apply to members of HM Forces working in the undertaking?

No, it does not apply to regular members of HM Forces or to reservists serving full time with regulars for a predetermined period in a specific posting. For some contracts, MOD may allocate HM Forces posts to work with a contractor as an integral part of the delivery of the service requirements.

Those who apply to Bristows rather than Bristow might not find they are successful. It has never had an "s" on the end.

Since when does that differ between the Military and Civilian Life?:uhoh:

TUPE Is indeed a minefield. Nobody seems to understand exactly how it works or how it is defined.

How it is applied depends on how desperate the successful contractor is to acquire staff and how many.

As an example when Bristow were awarded the Humberside BP contract they wanted the engineers, but not all so they initially drew a line by saying any engineer with a restricted licence was not required.

They (not CHC) then made redundant those who did not cross the line.
As it happens one guy took redundancy and the others were retained by CHC.

Because TUPE is so Byzantine there is a feeling that accepting it is sometimes easier than trying to argue against. There appears to be a gentlemens agreement between CHC and Bristow to apply it as in the case above and when Bristows lost SAR to CHC. I am sure it will be applied again for the comming exodus fron CHC SAR to Bristow SAR.
However they will only take the numbers they need and can make redundant the excess. Not that there will be any this time.

Interestingly when Bond won the Blackpool contract from CHC I believe TUPE did not get applied. No real difference between the two scenarios.

My own personal view is that if a contract runs it's course and a new contract is drawn up TUPE does not apply.

If contractor X is purchased by contractor Y half way through a contract and the staff are transferred as part of the deal then TUPE does apply.

These observations and they are only observations are based on personal experience.


As an after thought the Bristow-Bristows issue is reminiscent of Rolls Royce. Employees of that fine company only speak of working for Royces
never for Rolls, something to do with the history of the company.

dieseldo,

That ties in with my understanding, too. I just can't see how TUPE can apply in this situation. Different contract, different equipment, different locations, different licensing requirements.

TUPE was designed to preserve existing Ts and Cs for existing staff during contractual ownership changes. The military SAR "contract" is coming to an end.

TUPE is certainly a minefield. I have been peripherally involved in another arena.

I certainly think that if anyone wanted to argue it, there would be a good chance of rejecting the application of TUPE:

- different contract
- different aircraft
- different bases
- different government department as the prime mover
- completely different set of qualifications required

etc.

So how does this fit with harvesting existing SAR local knowledge?

UK SAR 2013 privatisation: the new thread
 

Easy Jim,
You keep/employ some locally and the new guys have to learn it. It was ever thus as the military get posted every 3 years (except Chivanor)

OK. Lots of wishful thinking posts popping up. However, truth is there is a plethora of current civilian SAR pilots available to Bristows together with a load more ex military SAR personnel in different civilian markets. All of these would be more desirable than 'pure' military crew. Sure managed path has been mentioned. Maybe a managed path to junior FO at an undesirable base will be considered whilst they learn the trade. Time will tell.

I was wondering for the mil guys, as SAR pilots (RN or RAF) are you instrument rated? (Full) ?
Cheers...

Brutal - RAF SAR pilots are procedural instrument rated, RN SAR aircraft do not have the procedural IF capability - however, none of our our military IRs are recognised by EASA or the CAA despite the almost identical profile of the testing.

So in short, no, we do not have civilian IRs, although some have paid their own way through it following completion of the bridging package last year.

Sea King Driver...

..if that's the case then you may struggle to fit in, civvy crew rooms love a bit of that attitude ;). How else can you debrief the trip? ;)

But exactly the same task in the same places with the same basic talents. This explains the need for Managed Transition and why it must surely be a vital component of any plan for FULL VALUE ON DAY ONE.

But it isn't just the military with those basic talents Jim.

But who will be the independent arbiter selected by the DfT to make that judgement? Who will form the team that four years down the line are able to say categorically that there has been no loss of capability since privatisation of the service? Are the CAA capable of independently judging whether a wholly privatised SAR service meets the same standards as the services it replaced?

As long as the shifts get covered and the aircraft don't get grounded 225-style, it will appear to the politicians and civil servants that everything's working perfectly.

It's not good enough to simply state that there will be no loss of capability without a yardstick to measure this by and that requires a team of experienced external assessors.

I'm merely highlighting that some posters seem fixated with the argument that 'only the mil are good enough'. I've seen both sides of the fence and this just isn't true.

The maintenance of standards is an entirely different issue to who is recruited. I would suggest that the assessment /quality assurance procedures currently applied to CHC, and soon to be employed on GAPSAR, will be sufficient for the individual aircrew at a base level. Or are you suggesting that the current civvy bases are winging it?! Surely we're not headed for the mil aircrew V civvy aircrew argument all over again?! http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/.../eusa_wall.gif

As for the contract in its entirety, that must be done at a higher level than individual assessment of the guys and girls operating.

But who are/will be the external assessors and what is their SAR pedigree? We have Ofgem, Ofwat, ofcom etc? Who will form Ofsar? Someone has to be able to report back to the Transport Select Committee that everything's going fine and they'll need to base that on hard evidence that capability hasn't been lost. The public demand it these days.

Correct.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/444...ml#post7026647


It can be really easy to tell from the ground, no matter what colour the aircraft and flying suits are. However, it is almost certain that there will be a dip in capability in a part of the service and it has absolutely nothing to do with privatisation. There will be a new type on the scene and only an idiot would think that there will not be a significant period of learning how to get the best from that type. The same thing will happen in Norway when the 330 Skvn are re-equpped and in Sweden when the CG get their AW139s.

The S-92 is sorted and, with the new kit, the only way is up.