A WOMAN has failed to convince an employment tribunal she was unfairly dismissed by a housing company.

Susan Bibby, 49, quit her role at Family Mosaic Housing – a company commissioned by Southend Council to work in the housing sector.

Mrs Bibby claimed she was forced to quit over the handling of a disciplinary procedure after she was accused of breaching confidentiality, as well as a number of other allegations.

Mrs Bibby worked at homeless hostels in the Southend area between December 2009 and October 2016.

She was employed as a support officer who helped service users with rent and housing benefit problems as well as problems with substance abuse and mental health issues.

In January 2016, a complaint was made which alleged Mrs Bibby had discussed confidential matters with service users at a facility in Southchurch Avenue.

This included discussing individual drug problems in front of other clients as well as completing case work on a service user’s laptop because “he was very good with computers”.

The complaint stated: “The lady from room 4 said the man from room 17 was aware of all the details of all the other residents in the building and she quoted some details regarding a past resident.”

The complaint also alleged she had disclosed inaccurate information about a colleague, telling the service user the colleague was trying to get them evicted for rent arrears.

Mrs Bibby was initially suspended before being transferred to a Family Mosaic administration centre in Pitsea while an investigation was carried out.

Despite Mrs Bibby handing in her notice, Family Mosaic held a disciplinary hearing and found her behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and stressed the seriousness of breaches of confidentiality.

A dismissal letter was sent on October 21, 2016 and Mrs Bibby appealed the decision but it was upheld. At a hearing this year an employment tribunal recognised the case gave them “a great deal of trouble” but ultimately ruled against Mrs Bibby’s claims she was constructively dismissed – that is forced – or unfairly dismissed.

The report states: “On the basis of the evidence the respondent had about breaches of confidentiality it was not an unreasonable decision to dismiss the claimant.”