On the Appellant鈥檚 argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, UNAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. UNAT held that UNDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant鈥檚 application was not receivable. UNAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of law...