He has been asked to take a psychological interview/evaluation, apparently because the company feel he overreacted to a situation that THE COMPANY was unable to substantiate (the food issue).
As you may know, there have been cases where pilots have been "visined" by cabin crew. Such threats against one's food are not only a threat, but also complete insubordination, as in this case.
Hope that answers your question?
Just for context, there have been cases at UAL where the Captain has had a negative interaction/relationship and has sought to move the Purser from the forward cabin/cockpit interaction position and into the back cabin. The Pursers have REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CAPTAIN'S DECISION under the auspices of "I have the seniority to hold Purser and you do not have the authority to usurp my seniority!"
While the OVERALL relationship between cockpit and cabin crews is generally quite good, especially in the narrowbody/domestic arena where crews seem to have greater camaraderie over the crummy schedules they both fly. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the mainly VERY SENIOR, OLDER crews who fly internationally. It seems to me there is some "entitlement" mentality and, especially among SOME of the very senior FAs, even the STATED mentality that "he might be in charge from the cockpit door forward, but I am in command of the cabin." Hate to say it, but I have seen it, heard it and even heard of some of the discipline cases that have resulted from same.
IMHO, this WHOLE THING would and should have normally been a Professional Standards issue. However, in this instance, the Captain CLEARLY felt that a threat had been made against him, and more especially his food, AFTER negative interactions between himself and a member of the cabin crew AND his FOs and a/some member(s) of the cabin crew. Therefore, he felt it was within his authority to descend and land in MIA to relieve the crew member. I believe THAT DECISION is the ONLY THING being questioned by the company and the reason that, based on previous negative interactions with the company (that have NOTHING TO DO WITH EVENTS LIKE THIS), this pilot was seen as a "soft target" for a psych interview. Because this issue is NOT covered by the CBA, the union has little or no recourse against the company seeking this outcome, which is why the Captain is complying with their wishes...albeit possibly unwillingly.
Funny how the company had never had a problem with this pilot until a few months before the recent lawsuit against ALPA, when he was supposedly seen posting a notice about another person who was engaged in ANTI-UNION activity. I have no details on that issue, but do know it happened.
That's it. I have said as much, if not more, than I should, but only because SOME PEOPLE on this Forum are quick to condemn a 20+ year experience professional aviator because a hysterical Flight Attendant (with no appreciation for what it takes to become a widebody Captain at a major airline) seems to think he has a problem. Amusing that the person with the biggest problem I have seen in this incident is BoF!!!
Good luck, and tailwinds, to us all.