Sheriff rules that ordinary reader of trade union’s tweets would conclude that restaurant workers’ wages had been reduced

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] SC GLA 37
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Stuart Reid

Ashton Properties (Glasgow) Ltd alleged that comments posted on the Twitter page of Unite the Union were defamatory, as the true position was that the employees were being moved on to a different wage scale with the practical result of a wage increase. The defender argued that an ordinary reader would understand that the Tweets referred to a reduction in wage scale, and thus were truthful.

The case was heard by Sheriff Stuart Reid. Campbell, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Kennedy, advocate, for the defender.

Cancelled bookings and lost custom

The pursuer operated a restaurant bar in Glasgow called Brel. From 23 August 2021 to 1 April 2023, it paid its employees the “Real Living Wage” as set by the Living Wage Foundation, which was £9.90 per hour from 1 April 2021 to 30 March 2023. From 1 April 2023 onwards, the RLW increased by £1 per hour to £10.90 per hour.

On 20 March 2023, the pursuer informed Brel employees that their wages would increase. However, they would be paid the National Living Wage for individuals aged 23 or older regardless of their actual age, which was to be £10.42 per hour for the year 2023/24. This represented a pay increase from their previous hourly wage of £9.90 but was 48 pence less than the RLW rate for the same period. An industrial dispute then arose, into which the defender was brought in in its role as trade union.

The impugned Tweets were posted on 27 June 2023, one from Unite’s own Twitter account and another from the account of its employee Mr Simpson. The first stated that workers at Brel were told they would be “reduced” from the real living wage to the minimum wage and the second, which had the first Tweet embedded within it, stated that the company “makes millions from the hard work of our members who’ve been told they’re just not worth that extra 48p”.

It was averred by the pursuer that the defender’s Tweets resulted in loss in the form of reputational damage, cancelled bookings and lost custom. The meaning of the Tweets was false, as in fact the workers’ wages had increased from 1 April 2023. Various other ancillary issues were also in contention that did not relate to the point focused on in debate. Counsel submitted that the ordinary meaning of “reduced” invited the reader to conclude that wages had decreased overall.

For the defender it was submitted that the pursuer’s averred meaning was ambiguous as it did not adequately specify whether the hourly payment or the scale of pay was being reduced. It was self-evidently true that the latter reduction had occurred, and on a proper reading both Tweets only referred to scale.

Bear-pit of social media

In his decision, Sheriff Reid said of the relevant principles of interpretation: “When an allegedly defamatory statement is made on social media, that fact is in itself a significant contextual circumstance in the interpretation of the statement. The correct approach to the interpretation of such social media communications is explained by the Supreme Court in Stocker v Stocker (2020). Most significantly, social media must be recognised as being a casual medium. It is fast-moving. It is in the nature of conversation rather than carefully chosen expression.”

He continued: “People tend to scroll quickly through social media. They do not pause and reflect. They do not ponder on what meaning the statement might possibly bear. Their reaction to a communication is impressionistic and fleeting. The meaning that an ordinary reasonable reader will receive from a tweet is likely to be more impressionistic than, say, from a newspaper article which (simply in terms of the amount of time that it takes to read) allows for at least some element of reflection and consideration. The essential message that is being conveyed by a tweet is likely to be absorbed quickly by the social media reader.”

Applying these principles to the first Tweet, Sheriff Reid said: “[The defender’s interpretation] requires too subtle an analysis for the casual, fast-scrolling, flitting and fleeting social media user. It proceeds upon an over-elaborate analysis, not an impressionistic reading. In my judgment, the meaning conveyed by the First Tweet to the ordinary, reasonable Twitter user is that the workers’ wages were being ‘reduced’. They were to be paid less. They were to get a pay-cut. That is the inescapable, impressionistic meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable social media user.”

He added: “If the defender had wished to communicate a more subtle meaning, Twitter was not the place to do it. In the bear-pit of social media, nuance is lost amidst the babble of the online throng and the blizzard of the infinite scroll.”

Sheriff Reid concluded on the second Tweet: “On an impressionistic reading, the reference in the Second Tweet to ‘that extra 48p’ would simply be understood as the quantified ‘reduction’ in the wage to be paid to the Brel workers, as earlier described in the First Tweet. The ordinary reasonable social media user would be aware of the Real Living Wage and the Statutory Minimum Wage, [but] he would not be imputed with knowledge of the precise difference between those hourly rates. What would be taken from this Second Tweet is that the workers’ wages were being cut.”

The substance of the defender’s preliminary plea challenging the defamatory nature of the Tweets was therefore repelled, with a hearing assigned to determine further procedure.