No, and this has already been discussed.

There is no human right saying that you can't be told to wear a mask. Even if there was, most human rights are "qualified". These are rights which can be restricted not only in times of war or emergency but also in order to protect the rights of another or the wider public interest.

Qualified rights include:

• The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.

• The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

• The right to freedom of expression.

• The right to freedom of assembly and association.

• The right to protection of property.

To consider whether a restriction to a qualified right is justified, consideration must be given to the following questions:

• Is there a legal basis for the restriction of the right?

• Is there a legitimate aim or justification for the restriction, such as the protection of other people’s human rights?

• Is the action proportionate - is it the minimum necessary restriction of the right?

Construction site H&S rules require a hard hat

- EXCEPT in an enclosed vehicle cab

Safety footwear is required around site

- good employers allow drivers to change shoes for driving

Hi-Vis is demanded in vehicle movement areas

- and is of no value on a person sat within a vehicle

Control measures should always be proportionate and used for their assessed hazard.

I think that the driver , like a lot of people, simply misunderstood what the Law is about.  They assume that the Law consists of  a rulebook and what ever is in the rulebook is the law and you have to follow it. Anything not in the rule book is, according to them, not a legal requirement.

Of course the law is not like that. The concept of risk assessment confuses people: the idea that the employer based  on how they want to manage a risk in the workplace decides on their own rules and then workers are obliged to follow those rules. Give some people a headache.

Obligations under contracts similarly  confuse some people as well as the idea that you can enter into a contract without specifically signing something and that contracts might have implied terms as well as explicit terms.

Without resorting to PPE or medical devices describe simple control measures that could be implemented to facilitate communication such that site operatives do not have to stand immediately below an elevated driver leaning out of an HGV window:

1- Have the driver dismount their vehicle and face the site employee standing "x"m away

2- Have the driver only slightly open their window under strict instruction not to lean out

3- Operate an exclusion zone for site employees within "x" metres of a vehicles door

4- Install a platform so that site personnel can be at the same level as the driver

5- Have the driver/site employee talk via mobile

Whilst I agree, Rounduit, that these are all good/better controls, it is not really relevant to the OP question. The question was whether the driver could appeal under "human rights", and the answer is yes, but he will lose. No-one would take up the case, as it is open and shut.

As was noted in the previous discussion, the driver was not fired due to him not wearing PPE, it was his attitude that cost him his job. He was rude to a customer and refused to apologise. The face covering was the catalyst. Some sites have stupid health and safety rules, but if you don't follow them the customer can exclude you from the site. As long as this exclusion is not based on any protected characteristic (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation), and meets the 3 criteria laid out below you have not had any of your rights unfairly restricted.

At the very loosest of terms the only right I can see that may have been violated would be "the freedom of expression", this is a qualified right. A judge would then look at the three clauses, which have to be met to overide that right.

Is there a legal basis? - Yes, under the HASAWa etc 1974 every employer has a duty to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of employees are protected. Face coverings are a reasonably practicable way of protecting your employees (and others on your site)

Is there a legitimate aim or justification for the restriction? - Yes, the protection of public health, and/or safety

Is the action proportionate? - (ok this is where we may disagree) A face mask is cheap, effective and easily available (they even gave the driver one). That seems to meet all the criteria to what I would accept as proportionate. Yes, there were other ways they could have done this. But this is the control they chose.

I acknowledge that you are more experienced than I in the H&S field, so I welcome critique from my peers. If I am wrong I would prefer to know and understand that. If you can explain, for example, why you feel face coverings are not proportionate, that may help me understand your point better.

I will concede I have drfited from the OP question on human rights although you could look to Article 7 - "No punishment without law"

As to face coverings it is for the reasons argued across many other posts - there is no standard to the required protection level to select when discussing Covid face coverings versus either PPE or Medical Equipment.

Look to the legal definition of a face covering under the Covid regulations "cover the nose and mouth" many months ago I jokingly pointed out that by this definition you could shove your head in a box. Many months later and other than a tweak about face shields there is still no definition as to the degree of protection a face covering must provide.

Firms pass out coverings like sweets with no consideration of fit or fitting. Those same employers when issuing PPE are expected to provide "adequate instruction and training".

As example have you ever seen the colleagues stood by your local supermarket door show the public how to put on the mask they free issue? Do they select an appropriate size relative to the potential wearer or merely pick the next one from the box already in their hand?

So we put on the badly fitted mask, of unknown value, and whilst talking sneeze or cough which pushes the droplets out of the mask (I will agree it will catch some, but not all) that then fall upon the person stood below the driver. Is PPE the correct control?

This case was always bound to end in almost certain defeat for a claimant who was self representing.

Forget questions as to whether a face covering constitutes PPE, let alone whether it is the most appropriate control for a minute.

Let's change the scenario.

Claimant A works as a delivery driver for haulage company H, whose main customer is Big Brother, BB.

BB's site manager is Fat Controller who likes to be given all the respect that the likes of Putin expect.

So, BB makes a site rule that all drivers on site (whether employed by H or anyone else) must salute the Fat Controller each time the second hand reaches the top of the clock, i.e. once a minute.

A decides this is a stupid rule and fails to salute the FC. Two of the FC's minions remind A that this is a site rule and that A is likely to be banned from site if they do not do as the rule states.

A says that it's not on the written site rules. Minions explain that this is a trial and has not been included in the printed version of the site rules yet.

A says that it's not law and points to the rather vague Control of Idiot Controllers Regulations 2021.

Middle ranking minion asks the FC what to do. FC tells minion to ring H to say that A is now banned from site until A signs an undertaking to comply with the site rules and bow three times to FC to apologise.

Manager at H explains all this to A who refuses to sign the undertaking and is then subject to internal disciplinary procedures and is fired.

In the subsequent employment tribunal H advises that since work at BB constiutes 80% of H's business it is not practical to redeploy A to other customers.

Employment tribunal judgment is that it is a commercial reality for H to follow BB's rules however daft they might be.....in practice it doesn't even matter whether those rules were "reasonable" or not.

Perhaps the only difference is that if FC had been Putin, A would now be locked up rather than just (though, perhaps unjustly, if we apply natural justice) out of work.