Channel Television during the 1979 ITV Strike

All TVS staff were made redundant. Getting re-hired by Meridian was a bonus if you like. I can assure you not all staff were taken on by Meridian, and some permanent staff made redundant by TVS did the same job at Meridian but as freelancers on contracts because that was the “new” status of the job. Horses mouth.

Was TUPE not in force at that stage?

I think it wouldn't have applied because TVS and Meridian were different companies.

Just because they're different companies, that doesn't mean TUPE shouldn't apply.

When rail franchises change from one company to another, TUPE normally applies.

TUPE was introduced in it's present form in 2006. It formalised and updated the regulations, providing a proper modern legal framework, the practice having been used widely previously.

(Edited, to make clearer)

Actually it goes back to 1981.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/1794/made

Good question.

TUPE would apply in a scenario similar to when TSW replaced Westward as it took over the entire company but it may not apply in a scenario similar to when TVS replaced Southern as it took over the studios of Southern but not the company and its programme archive.

At the time the transfer of staff during an ITV franchise change was an IBA and / or a unions rule. I read somewhere that it only applied to technical staff and not TV presenters or script writers.

TUPE wouldn't have applied or been necessary in the TSW/Westward case as the old company was bought by the new one. So it's just like any other company takeover - for example when Sky changed ownership last year.
Incidently ATV/Central was the same company but different structure and shareholding so it wouldn't have applied there either

TUPE is to protect employees during a change of contractor or outsourcer. They're continuing their job but the company who employs them changes.
Rail franchises are a good example of TUPE, there the service provided is essentially outsourced by the government. The staff and the trains and the infrastructure remains no matter which company manages the service. Therefore when that company changes they're TUPEd over

The 1993 ITV changes weren't applicable for TUPE as they were companies losing work - they just didn't get a new license as it was given to someone else. It's the equivalent of company A losing a contract to supply a supermarket to a rival, company B. How company A manages to continue trading and what happens to its staff is up to them and Company B has no responsibility for its rivals staff.

The successor companies in 1993 were also different business models - smaller and publisher broadcasters rather than producers so jobs couldn't have been all transferred

My bold, But I believe the 'protection' is only for a limited period of time. I have it in mind it is only 2 years before the 'new' employer can start changing the original T&C's of the Tuped staff carried over from their previous employer. Happy to accept I may be wrong on this one.

Terms and conditions can be changed for certain reasons, but not just to harmonise the two workforces:
https://www.springhouselaw.com/updates/can-my-new-employer-change-my-terms-and-conditions-after-a-tupe-transfer/

I underwent TUPE a few years ago and our T&C's have changed, along with everyone else in the company since

Yes, it is 2 years (or at least it was in 2013) The company I worked for attempted to TUPE the staff from the department I worked in, to another company.

Because of that 2 year period, we all resisted the attempt, and took redundancy instead, which turned out to be the right choice, because 2.5 years later that company folded !

The problem with TUPE is trying to apply more recent legislation to historical situations.