My post was written in a haze. What I meant to say was that every single contract I've ever had put in front of me had a rights clause in it, stating that whatever I did for a company was theirs, full-stop. Also, with publishing today (and during the nine years I've been freelancing), every publisher has a generic rights-reversion clause, which states that your work becomes theirs (either exclusively or non-exclusively, depending on the publisher) upon a certain action being taken (either your acceptance of the commission, your submission of the work, or your acceptance of the payment). This is whether or not you've signed a de-facto contact and is binding. The exceptions are when something isn't run (in which case you tend to get a kill fee) or when something is outright rejected.
Unless Fleetway had the most stupid lawyers and legal team on the planet, I can't really imagine the rights issue being such an open and shut case on behalf of the contributors, but more so for the in-house team. There's probably room for argument, but unless there really were no contracts whatsoever for the in-house editorial team, I can't really see how McKenzie can make the argument he's making. Clearly, however, I (and we) don't have all the facts, so this is just speculation.