DH is going through consultation process at work. (RBS - <spit>).
They want to cut 90 posts from a total of 308.
The first part of the process was to ask for voluntary redundancy/early retirement. DH has not accepted VR and has said he would like to remain at the company.
If there are not enough takers this time around, then compulsory redundancies will ensue.
It seems as if they might have achieved their targets from the first round, which would be good.
If this is the case, then presumably they can't make DH redundant anyway, can they? If they have filled their quotas, and he has applied to stay, then he is safe - yes?
He has intimated that he thinks he will have been earmarked as someone they may wish to 'get rid of' - but it was my understanding of redundancy/employment law that individual targetting cannot happen (disciplinary issues to one side, of course).
If they've specifically said they will be making 90 posts redundant as part of this process, then they can't increase that number mid-process, or not without appropriate consultation anyway.
However just because they have more than 90 volunteers doesn't mean they've filled their quota. They may choose to reject some of the candidates for VR. I expect it was made clear that volunteering for redundancy doesn't guarantee it, they will have reserved the right to refuse it. Otherwise they run the risk of entire departments volunteering leaving no one with skills required, or of all the best people volunteering.
In terms of individual targetting, no that shouldn't happen. In this type of situation I would expect criteria for selection for compulsory redundancy to be announced and agreed, usually including performance, disciplinary record, attendance record, skills and experience. Your DH should know what the criteria will be before they select people for compulsory redundancy.
So if he's got an exemplary record of the above things, it will be difficult to make him compulsorily redundant.
Of course, when I say targetting shouldn't occur, that doesn't mean it doesn't. It has been known for criteria to be 'massaged' to get the desired result. Agreeing criteria to be used beforehand, as they will do with unions I expect, means this is less likely to happen/more difficult to challenge if it does.
I expect they are hoping and anticipating not to have to make compulsory redundancies then. If they do have to, because they either don't get enough or the right volunteers, he should have criteria for compulsory redundancies explained then.