In essence, the assumption researchers that support the value of organizational justice have is, that if employees believe they are being treated fairly, this will bring about positive attitudes toward their work, their bosses and supervisors, and the organization itself; on the other hand, if they feel the treatment they receive is unfair, such perception will end up creating tension, feelings of dissatisfaction and demotivation (De Boer, et. al, 2002), which will result in lack of productivity, decreased work quality, and absenteeism (Wayne, et. al, 2002). Greenberg (1993) cited by Martinez (2014) proposed a two-dimensional taxonomy, in which the first dimension defines the categories of distributive and procedural justice and the second dimension by social components associated with distributions and procedures.

As stated by Buluc (2015) in modern organizations, it is common to hear the concepts of fairness, justice and righteousness.

According to Colquit, Noah and Jackson (2006) cited by Tziner et al.(2015) organizational justice generally relates to three specific components, distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Greenberg (1993) cited by Martinez (2014) proposed a two-dimensional taxonomy. In the first dimension, he defines the categories of distributive and procedural justice, while the second dimension deals with the social components associated with distributions and procedures. This way, interactional justice was divided into interpersonal justice (that is the treatment among those making distributive decisions and those affected by them) and informational justice (based on the extent to which people perceive that they are receiving the adequate and necessary information for the efficient performance of their tasks).

According to Moorman (1991) organizational justice is the perception workers have about what is fair or what is not in the organization, which includes three aspects: distributive, procedural and interactional.

In accordance with Tziner (2015) the concept of distributive justice traditionally is based on Adams' general theory of equality; Greenberg (1993) defines distributive justice as the perception of justice on resources received by the organizations and individual workers, since they may experience a sense of injustice when they feel they are not treated equally.

According to Leventhal (1980), cited by Enoksen (2015), distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness by employees of an organization. For Moorman (1991) The concept emerged in the mid-fifties when employees expressed their concern about the distribution of wages and it is defined as the cost and effort it takes to solve a problem or as the calculation of benefits received given the cost of the service/product, or as equal treatment to all customers (Maxham andNetemeyer 2002, Mc Collough 2000). b) Procedural justice Greenberg (1993) defines procedural justice as the impartiality of the means by which a resource allocation decision is made. According to Leven thal, Karuza and Fry (1980) procedures are likely to be considered fair if they meet six elements: they must be consistent, unbiased, accurate and correctable, should represent all problems and should prevail on the basis of ethical standards.

For Moorman (1991) procedural justice is defined as the degree in which decisions are made on the job and include mechanisms to ensure the proper collection of information, the possibility of expression by the workers and the existence of feedback processes. Leventhal et al.(1980) states that for the procedures to be seen as fair, the following criteria must be taken into account: ? They must apply in the same conditions to all people at any given moment; ? They must not be biased; ? The information used to make decisions must be valid and reliable ? There must be procedures to detect and correct biased actions; ? Must conform to the company's ethical and moral standards ; ? Must take into consideration the opinions of the groups that may be affected by those decisions. According to Arboleda (2009) the perception of justice that individuals have about the policies and procedures that employees follow is known as procedural justice. Thus processes are just when they are defined in a fair and consistent manner, letting people know that the organization has standardized processes to allocate resources and salaries to employees. So it is a complementary concept to distributive justice.

Interactional justice has been found to be an important variable in understanding a variety of workers attitudes and their behavior in response to layoffs, budgetary decisions, purchasing decisions, negotiating tactics, corporate hiring practices (Bies and Moag 1986), customer service practices, and operational market practices. Moreover, interactional justice has been an important variable in understanding organizational behavior (Moorman, 1991), confidence in management and organizational commitment and consumer behavior.

Bies y Moag (1986) call it interactional justice when the procedures are implemented and carried out with different levels of quality, which reflects in the way customers receive friendly, dignified and respectful treatment from the directors of the organization. Moorman (1991) defines interactional justice as the degree to which employees feel their needs are taken into account and that there are appropriate explanations to the making of decisions.

The perception of being treated fairly by the management in an organization produces in the employees behavior patterns that favor or limit their interest to give greater or lesser effort, to feel satisfied or dissatisfied, to value the directors positively or negatively, to achieve greater or lesser organizational commitment or be more or less vulnerable to stress according to Greenberg (1993) cited by Xiaoyu (2012).

In the opinion of Arboleda (2009) interactional justice was initially the part of procedural justice to assess whether people offered customers a friendly treatment, but in the eighties the concept received more attention to measure the quality of interpersonal relationships and he defines it as the intention to help communicate what is appropriate and strive to solve problems. d) Organizational justice in the academic world Moorman (1991) suggests that the study of organizational justice in an educational institution begins when the perceptions of academics are known from the following approaches: ? Distributive justice. It is defined as the fairness with which an organization, through management, distributes benefits such as, incentives, work positions, and promotions. ? Procedural justice. It is defined as the fairness in the procedures with which an organization makes the decisions to distribute the benefits. Moorman (1991) proves the importance of the perception of organizational justice on the part of the employees of an educational institution as a modifier of the work attitudes and behaviors which give us the following:

? The relationship between participation and job satisfaction is influenced significantly by the perception that people have of receiving a fair treatment in the process of decision making. This is defined as distributive justice, resulting in the fact that the participatory systems make the perception of distributive justice more critical. ? The perception of distributive justice affects satisfaction and the idea that workers have of the incentives being related to work effort. This perception of organizational justice has effects that go beyond the attitudes and behaviors of workers such as organizational commitment and effort, because, through them, influence can be applied on the clients of the educational services such as students, who respond to the assessment they make of the fairness with which they are treated with positive (or negative) emotional responses with respect to both, the teachers and the educational organization as Moorman (1991) noted in a study done on a sample of students and university professors seen as clients.

The perception of organizational justice also has a major impact on teacher behavior by preventing the manifestation of symptoms of stress and pathologies with negative effects that affect academic organizational efficiency.

In order to perform an analysis of organizational justice in a sample of professors from a public higher education institution, the next objective was set:"To determine the significant effect between the qualifying variables of the professors and the variables of organizational justice." The research hypotheses are as follows H10

There is no statistically significant relationship perceived by the professors between the organizational justice variables and the qualifying variables at a university.

There is a statistically significant relationship perceived by the professors between the organizational justice variables and the qualifying variables at a university.

To reply to the statement of the problem we carried out the collection and analysis of data using descriptive statistics and inferences which corresponds to a quantitative, non-experimental, cross design approach.

The research was conducted on a sample of 334 teachers to whom we applied Moorman's (1991) Organizational Justice instrument, which consists of three dimensions and includes 20 items on a five-point Likert scale

We carried out the validity of the instrument and the results obtained in the dimension analysis performed with the Quartimax main components and rotation method gave confirmation of the construct in which three dimensions were obtained: Dimension 1, Distributive justice composed of 5 items, Dimension 2, Procedural justice made up of 6 items, and Dimension 3, Interactional justice which has 9 items, thus confirming the validity of the construct as it can be seen in Table 1.

Table1 : Construct validity on the scale of organizational justice IV.

The hypotheses raised in this investigation were tested by the Variance Analysis (One-Way ANOVA). We found a statistically important relationship between the organizational justice variable perceived by the professors and the qualifying variables. These results proved hypothesis H1 A which states that the organizational justice variables perceived by the academics have a statistically significant relationship with the qualifying variables.

Based on the results of the Variance Analysis (One-Way ANOVA), the distributive justice dimension perceived by the sample of professors has a statistically significant relationship with the qualifying variables: age, schooling of teachers, and the educational programs where they teach. In regard to the procedural justice dimension of the variable organizational justice perceived by a sample of professors, there is a statistically important relationship with the variables: school where they teach and teacher's seniority.

As it can be seen in Table 4, the highest mean scores of the distributive justice dimension and the institute where they teach variable are found with the professors who teach at the Institute of Agricultural Sciences (ICAP) (mean=3.45), and the lowest with those who teach at the Institute of Economic-Administrative Sciences (ICEA) (mean=2.75).

In the matter of the seniority variable, the highest mean of the procedural justice dimension is found in those academics with a seniority greater than 30 years (mean=3.72) and the lowest with those with between 26 to 30 years on the job (mean=1.81).

No significant differences between the following variables were identified: marital status, gender, age, academic schooling, category, programs where teach, and the number of hours worked every day with the perceived procedural justice dimension. The interactional justice dimension of the justice variable perceived by teachers has a statistically significant association with the variables: marital status, the institute where they teach and their age.

Table 5 shows that the highest mean scores of the interactional justice dimension and the marital status variable are found among single teachers (mean=3.34) and the lowest among married teachers (mean=3.04).

Regarding the "institute where they teach" variable the highest mean of the interactional justice dimensionis found with the teachers that work at the Agricultural Sciences Institute (ICAP) (mean=3.49) and the lowest among those who teach at the Economic-Administrative Sciences Institute (ICEA mean=2.81).)

In relation to the seniority variable, the highest mean of the interactional justice dimension is found in the professors who have a seniority of more than 30 years (mean=3.72) and the lowest among those that have been teaching between 26 to 30years (mean=1.76).

No significant differences between the following variables were identifiedby the professors: gender, age, academic schooling, category, and the number of hours worked per day with the interactional justice dimension. Source: Authors' calculations based on a statistical run.

V.

In regard to distributive justice and according to the results obtained, scholars that range in age from 40 to 49 years perceive a better distribution of the workload and this could be explained because they are academics who have seniority in the institution.

In respect to the schooling variable, those who have a specialty recognize a more positive distributive justice; this could be explained because they feel that the wages earned, the workload, and the work schedule are distributed according to the level of preparation they have.

The teachers that detect a more equitable distributive justice are those who teach al the bachelor's degree level, which could be related to the structure of the curricula and study plans.

As far as procedural justice is concerned, the professors of the Agricultural Sciences Institute notice a more positive justice, and this could be due to the fact that the director makes sure that all the concerns of the academic personnel are heard before decisions are made, they receive additional information when it is required in order to object or appeal some decisions made by the director, who, during this process, treats the staff with kindness and consideration, and shows concern for the rights of the teachers.

The seniority variable in relation with procedural justice came out more positive with those academics that have been at the job for 26 to 30 years. This could be a result of the interest these teachers have to carry out each and every one of the procedures defined within the study plans and programs in order to fulfill the curricular objectives.

Finally, the result of the interactional justice dimension was more positive with those teachers who are single and this is due to the fact that they have less limitations in their relationship with their co-workers.

At the Agricultural Sciences Institute there is a more positive perception of a procedural justice, which means that the professors have improved the manner they interact and relate to the rest of the personnel.

Seniority is an important aspect for interactional justice and, according to the results, the scholars with more than 30 years working have a more positive perception, and this is due to the fact that they have more capacity to relate with their workfellows.

There have been studies on organizational justice with the objective of having the workers perceive what is just and unjust within the organization to which they belong. Based on their perception, the workers could sustain positive attitudes towards their jobs, the decision makers and the organization; that is why it is vital to continue with further studies to explain the perception of the distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. It is also essential to continue with its analysis regarding job satisfaction, organizational climate, as well as with the image of the company in order to create and propose strategies to improve the levels of perception.