I want to side with him, and I think there is a good argument that he's right, but yours has a fatal flaw:

If you want people to work in these types of conditions you have to take their needs into consideration.

The fact that they fired him indicates they don't want him to work in these types of conditions. They don't want the logistics hassle associated with his chosen lifestyle.

The article claims that repeated attempts were made to negotiate with management to "improve" the situation. Those attempts could be considered negotiations. He may or may not have secured promises from management in exchange for his continued employment. The breaking of those promises could potentially be considered fraud.