i

GRIEVANCE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND DISCIPLINE HANDLING

AWARENESS AMONG PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS:
AN INFOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

A Master’s Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of the Graduate School
SOUTHERN LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY
Lucban, Quezon

In Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Educational Management

by

LECHELLE R. DE LOS REYES

April 2017
 ii

APPROVAL SHEET

Republic of the Philippines

Southern Luzon State University
Lucban, Quezon

A Thesis of

LECHELLE R. DE LOS REYES

Entitled

GRIEVANCE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND DISCIPLINE HANDLING

AWARENESS AMONG PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS:
AN INFOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

Submitted in partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT

In the Graduate School

Southern Luzon State University
Has been approved by the Committee

ANITA B. AQUINO Ed. D GILLIAN PORTIA P. DIMARANAN, Ph. D

Member Member

TERESITA V. DE LA CRUZ, Ed. D

Chairman

CONRADO L. ABRAHAM, Ph. D TERESITA V. DE LA CRUZ, Ed. D

Adviser Graduate Program Dean, CTE

Accepted in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Educational Management

____________________ MARISSA C. ESPERAL, Ph. D, RGC

Date Vice President for Academic Affairs
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher wishes to express her heartfelt gratitude and appreciation

to those who have helped her in the completion of this study, particularly the

following:

Dr. CONRADO L. ABRAHAM, research adviser, for his time, knowledge,

expertise shared and experiences imparted to the researcher, for with which this

study had found proper direction until its completion;

Dr. Teresita V. de la Cruz, chairperson, Dr. Anita B. Aquino, and Dr.

Gillian Portia P. Dimaranan members of oral examination committee, for their

valuable inputs in giving pertinent remark and suggestions relevant to the study;

Victor M. Disilio, Lorelyn N. Saltoc, Quianne Karen P. Cabantugan,

Ezperanza P. Villega and La Trishia Dalit for sharing their expertise and

never-ending moral support to finish this study;

Secondary School heads of the sampled school and respondents for

their willingness to provide necessary data which at great help for the study;

Nino A. Crisolo for being one the sources of inspiration through his

untiring love, understanding, and support;

Father, mother, brothers and sister-in-law for their endless love and

support;
 iv

Above all,Almighty God, for His never-ending guidance, providence and

eternal love that made the researcher strong, blessed, enthused and thankful

every day.

LRD
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE………………………………………………………….………….. i
APPROVAL SHEET……………………………………………………..………. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT……………………………………..………………...…. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………..…………. iv
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………..…………. v
LIST OF FIGURES…………..……………………………………………………vii
LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………….…………………… xiii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………..…… xi

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..…... 1
Background of the Study……………………..……………………..… 4
Objectives of the Study….……………………….……………………. 6
Hypothesis……………………………………………………………… 8
Significance of the Study …………………...………..………………. 8
Scope and Limitation……………………………………..……….…… 10
Definitions of Terms………………………………….…….………….. 11

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………..… 15

Theoretical Framework………………………………………………... 44
Research Paradigm…………………………….…….……..………… 47

III.METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………… 49
Locale of the Study. .………………………………………..….……... 49
Research Design.…………………………………………………….... 49
Population and Sampling……………………………………….......... 50
Research Instrumentation………………………….…………….…… 50
Validation of Instrument……………………………………………….. 51
Data Gathering Procedures……………………………………..….… 52
Statistical Treatment…………………………….………………...…... 52

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………… 54

Infographic Material on Grievance Management
Procedure and Discipline

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………… 93
Summary …………………………………………………………..….. 93
Findings……………………………………………………………....... 94
Conclusions…………………………………………………….…….… 96
Recommendations……………………………………………..……… 97
 vi

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………… 99
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………… 105
CURRICULUM VITAE ………………………………………………………... 114
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Distribution of the Respondents According to Age ……………… 56

2 Distribution of the Respondents According to Gender …………. 57

3 Distribution of the Respondents According

to Length of Service ……………………………………………….. 59

4 Distribution of the Respondents According to Present Rank

or Designation ……………………………………………………… 61

5 Distribution of the Respondents According to Educational

Attainment ………………………………………………………….. 62

6 Level of Awareness of the Teacher-Respondents toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms
of Grounds for Grievances……………………………………...... 64

7 Level of Awareness of the Teacher-Respondents towards

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms of
Grievance Procedures…………………………………….……..... 67

8 Level of Awareness of the Teacher-Respondents Towards

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms of
Grievance Committee……………………………………………… 70

9 Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents towards DepEd

Grievance Management Procedures in terms of Grievance
Committees’ Jurisdiction…………………………………………. 72

10 Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents towards DepEd

Grievance Management Procedures in terms of Grievance
Committees’ Responsibilities……………………………………… 74

11 Summary of Levels of Awareness among Teacher-

Respondents toward DepEd Grievance Management
Procedures …………………………………………………………. 76

12 Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents toward Discipline

Handling of DepEd in terms of Grounds
for Disciplinary Action ………………………………………….... 77

Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents Toward Discipline

 viii

13 Handling of DepEd in terms Penalties for Disciplinary Action…

80
Summary of Levels of Awareness among Teacher
14 Respondents Toward Discipline Handling of DepEd ………….
82
Test of Significant Relationship Between Demographic Profiles
15 of Teacher-Respondents and Their Level of Awareness Toward
DepEd Grievance Management Procedures and Discipline
Handling……………………………………………………………..
83
Test of Significant Difference [One-Way Analysis of Variance
16 (ANOVA) in the Levels of Awareness Among Teacher-
Respondents Toward DepEd Grievance Management
Procedures and Discipline Handling……………………………….
89
Acceptability of the Developed Infographic Material on
17 Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling in
terms of Objectives…………………………………………….…....
91
Acceptability of the Developed Infographic Material on
18 Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling in
terms of Content…………………………………………………….
92
Acceptability of the Developed Infographic Material on
19 Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling in
terms of Usefulness…………….………………………………….
93
Acceptability of the Developed Infographic Material on
20 Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling in
terms of Educational Significance………………………………….
94
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 A Schematic Diagram in Determining the Level of Awareness of

Public Secondary School Teachers on Grievance Management
Procedure and Discipline Handling……………… 49

2 Distribution of the Respondents According to Age ……………. 56

3 Distribution of the Respondents According to Gender ………... 57

4 Distribution of the Respondents According to Length

of Service …………………………………………………………... 58

5 Distribution of the Respondents According to Present

Rank/Designation ……………………………………………….… 60

6 Distribution of the Respondents According to Highest

Educational Attainment …………………………………………… 61
 x

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A Instrument……………….……….………………………..…… 95

B Communication…….………………………….……….….…… 100

C Table of Content Validation…………………………………… 103

 xi

ABSTRACT

Title of Research : GRIEVANCE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND

DISCIPLINE HANDLING AWARENESS AMONG
PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS: AN
INFOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

Researcher : LECHELLE R. DE LOS REYES

Degree Conferred : Master of Artsin Educational Management

Name and Address Southern Luzon State University,

of the Institution : Graduate School
Lucban, Quezon

Adviser : CONRADO L. ABRAHAM, Ed. D

Year Conferred : 2017

Keywords : Grievance Management Procedure, Discipline

Handling Procedure, Infographic Material

This study aimed at analyzing the level of awareness toward DepED

Grievance management procedure in terms of grounds for grievances,

grievance procedure, grievance committee, grievance committee’s jurisdiction

and responsibilities and Discipline handling in terms of grounds and penalties for

disciplinary action and their relationship to demographic profile (age, gender,

length of service, present rank/designation, highest educational attainment) of

160 purposively selected public secondary school teacher in Second

Congressional District of Quezon when they are grouped according to school

with an end view of developing an Infographic Material on Grievance

Management Procedure and Discipline Handling. Through mixed method of

 xii

research employing checklist survey questionnaire and structured interview. The

gathered data were analyzed and interpreted using graphs and tables supported

by the use of statistical treatment. Frequency count and percentage, mean and

standard deviation, Pearson correlation coefficient, and analysis of variance

(ANOVA) were used. Results suggest that teachers are moderately aware about

DepEd Grievance Management Procedures and Discipline Handling. Further,

there is no significant difference in the levels of awareness among teacher-

respondents from different public secondary schools. Thus, an Infographic

Material on Grievance Management Procedure has been developed and is

revealed to highly acceptable in all its parameters. It is recommended that the

Info-graphic Material on DepED Grievance Management Procedure may be

adapted by public secondary schools in the Division of Quezon as a

communicating tool in disseminating relevant information about DepEd

Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

 1

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Teachers who possess professional and personal characteristics are

humans too; they are not perfect and even not exempted from committing

mistakes. There are circumstances that may turn them into discomfort and

dissatisfaction while at work. These conditions are the reasons why despite

sincere dedication of teachers, they still commit an action which are against the

existing rules and policies of an educational institution (Lucila 2015).

Considering that the mentioned scenarios are also happening in other

government agencies, the Civil Service Commission disseminated Memorandum

Circular No. 02, s. 2001 dated January 26, 2001 which clearly states the policies

on the settlement of grievances in the public sector. It also mentioned that all

agencies should establish their own grievance machinery which will be the best

way to address grievance between or among government officials and

employees. It should be anchored on its goals which is to promote harmony in

the workplace and is expected to poster the productivity of each member of the

organization.

Article V (The Teachers and the Profession) Section 5 of Code of

Professional Ethics for Teachers emphasized that “It shall be the responsibility of

every teacher to seek correctives for what he may appear to be an

unprofessional and unethical conduct of any associates. However, this may be

done only if there is incontrovertible evidence for such conduct.” Thus, grievance

machinery must be established and implemented.

 2

As a response, the Department of Education created its own grievance

machinery and disseminated it in details through DepED order No. 35, s. 2004

entitled “Revision of the Grievance Machinery of the Department of Education.” It

is intended to help promote wholesome and desirable employee relations in the

Department and to prevent employees’ discontentment and dissatisfaction.

Grievance, as defined in DepED Order No. 35, s. 2004, refers to a work-

related discontentment or dissatisfaction which had been expressed verbally or in

writing and which, in the aggrieved employee’s opinion, has been ignored or

dropped without due consideration. It is where the management needs to cross

the threshold; they should settle it through fair and just grievance procedure and

proper discipline handling. It is a challenge for the school administrators to deal

with and address these kinds of issues with the intention of resolving it as early

as possible.

On the other hand, despite of grievance machinery employed by an

educational institution whose primary aim is to resolve complaints against

management, still, teachers experience conflict at work and, sometimes

consciously and unconsciously, break the institutional rules. It, then, becomes

the job of a school administrator to minimize the conflict and get things going

back on track. Disciplinary policies and actions play an important role in

prohibiting unwanted teachers’ behaviors.They should be aware of what they can

and cannot do. School administrators should clearly communicate the discipline

that will take place if a teacher breaks a rule of an educational institution. For this
 3

reason, a school needs to have a good disciplinary policy in place and should

communicate it well to the teachers.

To provide a safe and positive workplace for all, teachers are expected to

comply with the standards of conduct and performance while on the job. When

standards are not met, disciplinary action will be used as a way of encouraging

teachers to meet the standards of their profession.

Disciplinary action servesas a means to deal with problems related to poor

performance or inappropriate conduct. It should be administered equitably and

consistently, with emphasis on correcting the problem rather than on punishing

the teacher. Through disciplinary action, teachers will be reminded about the

quality of their current performance and the desired performance.

Discipline is a management complaints against the employees while

grievance is an employee’s complain against management. Both rooted from

employee’s dissatisfaction and aiming for the common good of the employee.

Young people need a high quality learning environment in order to grow

while teachers and school administrators should fulfill their roles as “agents of

change” at all times to provide high quality education. This can be possible if they

created a conducive work atmosphere free from any complaints of dissatisfaction

or misconduct.

The above notions prompted the researcher to conduct the study to further

her knowledge on the level of awareness of public secondary school teacher

toward DepEd Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling. The

present study serves as an endeavor to see how age, gender, length of service,
 4

present rank or designation, and highest educational attainment may likely

influence the level of awareness of public secondary teachers toward DepED

Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

Background of the Study

Considering the number of public secondary national high schools in the

Quezon province and the number of teachers working in each institution, they are

all working in fulfilling DepED’s mission and vision despite their diversity. It is

indeed a big challenge for teachers to complete eight hours of work while

conquering their differences and fulfilling their duties with mutual respect. They

come from different backgrounds, education and experiences. These, most of the

time, become some of the reasons why teachers experience discomfort in the

workplace and end up with misunderstanding. Later, this may ruin the

established conducive work environment.

According to Mubarak, Aziz, Shariff (2014) on their study entitled “To

Study the Causes of Teachers Grievances in Secondary School”, the reasons of

grievance between teachers include pay scale inequities, leave allowed,

management attitude, favoritism, age discrimination, behavior of seniors, work

load differences, parent attitudes toward teachers, indiscipline attitude,

promotion, injustice, and religious differences.

Aside from the dissatisfaction of teachers when they feel that they are

unfairly treated by the administrator, dealing with co-workers or co-teacher is

another ground for grievances and needs to be settled by the administrator.

 5

Misconduct and poor performance and other misdeed, which are all against

institutional policy, call for administrative discipline.

The researcher noticed that in the public secondary schools, particularly in

the Second District of Quezon where four-big schools are established within the

province, delinquent bureaucratize practices exist. This is revealed by instances

like the case of a public secondary teacher who resigned from the service

because of the accusation of sexual harassment and the misconduct repeatedly

committed by a seasoned teacher who came on school three to four times every

month but still in the service up to present.Common practices like tardiness,

frequent absenteeism, not wearing proper uniform and other administrative

concerns like poor performance and even misconduct also need instantaneous

attention of the administrator.

There are times that these are not properly addressed by the school

administrators. These practices are being unconsciously tolerated by the school

authorities by keeping matters “within school premises”. They choose to protect

the person by not raising the issue to the proper authority for the sake of good

reputation of an educational institution and the School-In-Charge as well, thus,

resulting for the teachers to repetitively commit the unacceptable behavior. In

keeping selves out of the process of investigation is one of the reasons why this

scenario occurs in today’s educational platform.

The attainment of the educational goals primarily lies on the hand of a

teacher and the school administrator. If a teacher keeps on committing

undesirable behavior or poster dissatisfaction toward work, it will probably affect

 6

his performance professionally and personally. Thus, the successful teaching-

learning process will be affected.

Considering the above-mentioned scenarios, the researcher found herself

reflecting on varied perceptions referring to the employee who are called

“professionals” but keep on committing mistakes and proving that he is not afraid

with whatever consequences he may receive. She thinks that, perhaps, the

employee is not aware with what will happen next if he keeps on committing

those deplorable behaviors or even with the mandated policies of an institution in

addressing such offenses.

The researcher asked her colleagues on how much they know about the

procedure in handling employees’ misbehavior and the corresponding

disciplinary measures on it. Majority of her co-teachers has limited knowledge

about the process involved in handling grievances and disciplinary actions. Their

answers strengthened the researcher’s desire to conduct this study and to find

reliable and consistent answers to her queries about the reasons why a

professional teacher keeps on committing undesirable work behavior despite the

presence of mandated policies. These policies mostly aim to protect the teachers

and help them to perform his task effectively and efficiently.

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study was to determine the level of awareness

of public secondary teachers in the Second District of Quezon about DepED

 7

Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling with an end view of

developing an infographic materials for the School Year 2016 – 2017.

Specifically, it sought to achieve the following objectives:

1. Determine the demographic profile of teacher-respondent in terms of:

1.1 Age

1.2 Gender

1.3 Length of service

1.4 Present Rank or Designation

1.5 Educational Attainment

2. Asses the level of awareness of the public secondary school teachers

toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure in terms of:

2.1 Grounds for grievances

2.2 Grievance procedure

2.3 Grievance committee and its jurisdiction

2.4 Grievance committees’ responsibilities

3. Evaluate the level of understanding of the public secondary school teacher

toward Discipline Handling of DepED in terms of:

3.1 Grounds for disciplinary action

3.2 Penalties for disciplinary action

4. Find out if there is a significant relationship between the respondents’ level

of awareness toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure and

Discipline Handling when they are grouped according to demographic

profile.
 8

5. Assess if there is a significant difference on the level of awareness of

public secondary school teacher toward DepED Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling when they are grouped according to

school.

6. Develop info-graphic materials to strengthen teachers’ awareness toward

DepED Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

7. Find out the acceptability of the info-graphic material.

Hypothesis

The following were hypothesized about the study:

1. There is a significant relationship on the respondents’ level of awareness

toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline

Handling when they are grouped according to demographic profile.

2. There is a significant difference on the respondents’ level of awareness

toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure when they are grouped

according to school.

Significance of the Study

Grievance management procedure and Discipline handling are equally

important for employees as they give support and security of job. These are

made not just to secure teachers, but also to remind them on how to become

effective and efficient employees. It is a hope of the researcher that the findings

of this study will be helpful to the following:

 9

To the teachers. The study would give them knowledge and awareness

about the existing grievance management procedures in the DepED. Thus, they

would be warned with the scenarios that trigger grievances. This will also uplift

their awareness with the instances which will be acted upon through DepED

grievance management and discipline handling.

The info-graphic material which is an eye catching medium of

communication may also help them to absorb, synthesize, and preserve

important information easily about DepED grievance management procedure and

Discipline handling.

To the administrators. It would provide them a good basis of what is

grievance management procedure on teachers’ perspective and how effective it

is in handling conflicts in the workplace/school.

The info-graphic material may serve as a reference for them in developing

or improving existing grievance machinery and discipline handling in the school

level.

To the District Grievance Committee. The findings of this study would

guide the committee in determining what particular part of the DepED Grievance

Machinery most of the teachers are not aware with; thus, serves as an aid in

formulating future course of action to address the problem.

The info-graphic material would be a good communicating tool on the part

of District Committee in disseminating relevant information about the existing

grievance management procedure and discipline handling employed by DepEd.

 10

To the Division Grievance Committee. The result of the study would

serve as a basis in revisiting, determining the lapses or gaps (if any) in

disseminating the mandated DepED Order.

The info-graphic materials would be a good communicating tools on the

part of School Division Committee in fulfilling their main duty to disseminate

relevant information about the existing grievance management procedure and

discipline handling employed by DepEd.

To the future researchers. The outcome of this study could be a basis for

conducting further studies on determining the effectiveness of grievance

machinery and system of discipline employed by DepED.

The info-graphic materials may also be used as a reference in developing

new grievance machineries and discipline handling techniques.

Scope and Limitation

This study was focused to determining the level of awareness of teachers

in public secondary high school in the Second District of Quezon toward DepED

Grievance Machinery and Discipline Handling.

This was limited on the selected big schools among the total number of

school per municipality. These schools are Quezon National High School

(Lucena), Lutucan National High School (Sariaya), Sta. Catalina National High

School (Candelaria), and Recto Memorial National High School (Tiaong).

The respondents of this study were composed of 160 selected public

secondary teachers from the different schools mentioned above. A self-made

 11

questionnaire was used as an instrument in gathering information. It consisted of

two parts. The first part was limited in determining the demographic profile of the

respondents as to age, gender, length of service, present rank or designation

and index of social position. While the second part gauged the level of

awareness of the respondents toward DepEd Grievance Management Procedure

in terms ofGrounds for grievances, Grievance procedure, Grievance Committee

and Its jurisdiction, Grievance Committees’ responsibilities and Disciplinary

Action in terms of; Grounds and Penalties for disciplinary action.

The time frame of this study wasfrom January 2017 to June 2017.

Definitions of Terms

For clarity and better understanding of the study, the following terms were

defined conceptually and operationally.

Ageis defined as the number of years a person has lived (Kowalczyk

2015).Operationally, it is a personal related variable of the respondent that

was correlated to teacher’s level of awareness.

Discipline Handling is a way to tell the employees that their performance of

conduct is not up to the expected standard and also to encourage them for

improvement (Habib 2014). Operationally, it is one of the main variables of

the study which was measured through level of awareness of public

secondary school teacher.

Educational Attainment refers to the highest degree that the manager acquired

during the conduct of this study (Igloso 2016). Operationally, it is one of the
 12

main variables of the study which was measured through level of

awareness of public secondary school teacher.

Genderpertains to the social identity of men and women (Brown & Robert

2014).Operationally, it is a personal related variable of the respondent that

was correlated to teacher’s level of awareness.

Grievance committee refers to voluntary arbitrators or panel of voluntary

arbitrator (Sarmiento 2009).Operationally,it is a specific part of DepEd

grievance management procedure which serves as a basis in assessing

teachers’ awareness on DepEd Grievance Management.

Grievance Committees’ jurisdiction is the original and exclusive jurisdiction to

hear and decide all unresolved grievance arising from the interpretation or

implementation of the personnel policies (Sarmiento 2009).Operationally,it

is a specific part of DepEd grievance management procedure which serves

as a basis in determining teachers’ awareness on DepEd Grievance

Management.

Grievance management procedure is a system of communication between

workers and managers of potential trouble and provide outlet for

complaints (Melchades 2013). Operationally,it is one of the main variables

of this study and was measure through level of awareness on it.

Grievance committee’s responsibility is the task of the committee toensure

that grievances are dealt with effectively in accordance with the Grievance

Procedures set out for the implementation of company policies (Gomathi

2014). Operationally,it is a specific part of DepEd grievance management

 13

procedure which serves as a basis in measuring teachers’ awareness on

DepEd Grievance Management.

Grounds for grievance denotes any dispute or controversy involving the terms

and conditions of employment which an employee or group of employee

may present to the employer (Sarmiento 2009).Operationally,it is a specific

part of DepEd grievance management procedure which serves as a basis

in measuring teachers’ awareness on DepEd Grievance Management.

Grounds for disciplinary Action is defined as an undesirable event or situation

that follows an instance of unacceptable behavior and is intended to

decrease the frequency of that behavior (Scheepers 2016). Operationally,it

is a specific part of DepEd Discipline Handling Procedure which serves as

a basis in measuring discipline handling awareness of public secondary

school teachers.

Information Graphic (Info-graphics) Materials are visual representation of

information, data or knowledge (Ross 2009).Operationally, it is the output

of this study. It includes consolidated and valid information about DepED

Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

Length of Service refers to longevity, duration of services or employment

(Sarker 2014).Operationally, it is a professional related variable of the

respondent and was correlated to teacher’s level of awareness.

Level of Awareness is the degree of knowledge and attentiveness of an

individual towards a particular thing (Sante2013).Operationally, it is the

main variable of this study, it is what intended to measure and determine

 14

which will be the main source of information in making info-graphic

materials on DepEd Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline

Handling.

Penalties for Disciplinary Action refer to management course of action used to

correct behavior which contradicts organizational goals and brings about

labor peace in the workplace (Knight &Ukpere2014). Operationally, it is a

specific part of DepEd Discipline Handling Procedure which serves as a

basis in measuring discipline handling awareness of public secondary

school teachers.

Present rank/designation refers to present job rank/position (Street 2010).

Operationally, it is one of the demographic variables of the respondent that

was correlated to teacher’s level of awareness.

 15

Chapter II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ANDSTUDIES

This chapter presents the different literature perused to gather insights for

the study. This also includes the studies considered to strengthen the concepts.

Moreover, the chapter provides the conceptual framework that led to formulation

of hypothesis.

Grievance Management Procedure

To be effective in any leadership role in the modern workplace requires

that a person should be proficient in all three functional areas: coaching -shaping

and developing people, managing – shaping work, projects and outcomes and

leading-shaping the workplace by moving people emotionally to make that vision

a tangible reality (Blount 2012).

Managing grievances within the workplace is one of the grave hindrances

in fulfilling all three functional areas. It is where the management should hear,

investigate and decide on matters that arise dissatisfaction on the part of

employee.

An effective grievance management will create conducive working

environment.It is very important in fulfilling organizational goal. It directly affects

the behavior of a worker as well as on his working performance in terms of

effectivity and efficiency. Proper management or handling grievances will result

to favorable outcome for both management and employee.

 16

Grounds for Grievances

Considering the theory of how employees feel toward the treatment of the

management, procedural-distributive justice theory, or organizational justice

theory is important. It is about how they judge the management whether they

have been treated fairly. The consequences of this for organizational functioning

in areas include job satisfaction, commitment and withdrawal(Olson-Buchanan

and Boswell 2008). It is important for an individual to feel that they are treated

fairly. Their “possessed concepts” reflect on their behavior. If they feel that they

are accepted and treated positively, then expect for positive outcomes on their

job performance. On the contrary, if they feel that they are treated negatively,

then expect for complaints and other expressions of discontentment like

grievances.

Kottawatta&Piyasen (2016) revealed that the traditional reasons for

grievance are disciplineand discharge. They added contract interpretation as

another ground for grievance. Sometimes, employee fails to obey existing rules

and regulations of an institution and most of the time they show disrespectful

behavior toward his/her employer or co-employee. Such undesirable behavior

can be a ground for disciplinary action which will be initiated by the management.

Thus, dispute or discontentment will be expressed through grievances. Their

dissatisfaction may trigger unwanted behavior toward their co-employee or even

to the management.

In the book, entitled “Education Law and the Private Schools” by

Sarmiento (2009),grounds to be considered within the scope of grievance

 17

machinery are enumerated. These include unsatisfactory working conditions,

improper, tedious or laborious work assignment, faculty tool or equipment,

unsatisfactory personnel and/or work process, improper placement and selection

or personnel, arbitrary

Same findings were found in the studies conducted by Gupta & Shukla

(2011) and Mubarak, Aziz, Shariff (2014). But they added individual nature of a

teacher, lack of medical facilities and economic instances like pay scale as

another grounds for grievance.There are number of causes of teacher’s

dissatisfaction on their workplace. They are concerned with things related to their

salary as well as with the availability of medical facilities which may help them in

times of need.

Sometimes, employee failed to obey the existing rules and regulations of

an institution. Most of the time, they show disrespectful behavior toward

employer or even co-employee. Such undesirable behavior can be a ground for

disciplinary action which will be initiated by the management. Thus, dispute or

discontentment arises and will be expressed through grievance.

Grievance Procedures

Grievance procedure refers to as a process that permits personnel the

opportunity to express a complaint to their administrator without a fear of

reprisal.It provides due process which in turn allows for the complaint and

grievant to be heard by successively from lowest level to higher levels of

management (Sorenson & Goldsmith 2009) and Tatham (2005) added that it
 18

may help to promote good employment relation.An effective handling of

grievance procedure may prevent an issue from intensifying to a labor protest or

in administrative complaint. It is important that grievant issues should settle as

early as possible in the lowest levelif individual wants to avoid the prescribed

proceedings and investigation.

On the other hand, DepEd Order No. 49 series 2006 stated the

employee/aggrieved party can present his grievance orally or in writing to his

immediate supervisor and handledby school grievance committee. If not settled,

he can appeal to the higher supervisor and express his grievance by writing and

wait for five (5) days for its decision. If the aggrieved part was not convinced with

the decision of district grievance committee, he can elevate the grievance into

division grievance committee where the board will investigate and conduct

hearing before rendering its decision. If the aggrieved party, still not satisfied with

the decision of the committee, he may elevate his grievance within five (5)

working days from the receipt of the decision to the Office of the Secretary who

shall make the decision within ten (10) days after the grievance and if the

aggrieved party still not satisfy with the decision of top management after those

conducted procedure, he may appeal or elevate his grievance to the Civil Service

Commission Regional Office. The aggrieved party is required to submit

Certification on the Final Action on the Grievance (CFAG) together with the

appeal in accordance with existing civil service law, rules and regulations.The

above grievance procedure was disseminated and served as a basis of all public
 19

schools in the Philippines in handling grievances from the date of its effectivity up

to present.

On the other handBudd & Colvin (2008) conducted a research which

primarily aimed to determine the effectivity of employed grievance process. He

found out that the most important criteria in determining effectivity of grievance

process were speed and satisfaction. Speed refers to the duration of committees’

respond to the claim, investigation, and hearings, while the final decision of

committee or arbitrator toward the dispute may measures satisfaction. Complying

with the prescribed number of days and posters fairness in rendering decision is

in need for grievance committee and can be considered as a rubric in measuring

effectivity of grievance procedure.

Doyle (2005) added that the primary benefit of effective grievance

procedure is that it serves as conflict management and dispute resolution

mechanism. It means that grievances and alike is one of thetop priority of

management with the aim of increasing employees’ productivity.

Since settling conflict and dissatisfaction within the organization is one of

the major concerns of manager, employers are required by the law to provide

their employees a method of dealing with grievances in a timeous and proper

fashion. The procedure itself must be followed properly and fairly(Mc Connell

2014). It is a must in every organization to employ a specific grievance

procedure which may address employees’ dissatisfaction. It is being agreed by

Cohen (2015)and noted that having a specific grievance procedure is very

important in developmental management process. Employees will be guided with

 20

the existing process or procedures if conflict arises. They will be directedto the

restrictions and be warned about the corresponding penalties of any offenses

they may commit. It is important also that the set of procedure and process are

followed continuously based on the its sequence.

Grievance Committee and Its jurisdiction

Memorandum Order No. 35, s. 2004 signed by Luz, ordered the

establishment of separate grievance committee in the central, regional and

division and district offices and in schools. It also included that only permanent

officials and employees shall be appointed or elected as members of the

grievance committee and in the appointment or election of the committee

members, their integrity, probity, sincerity and credibility shall be considered.

There are five Grievance Committeespresented in hierarchical position.

These include School Grievance Committee composed of principal or head

teacher, president of the faculty club, and a teacher. It has original jurisdiction

over grievances of teachers and non-teaching personnel in the school. It is

followed by the District Grievance Committee composed of district supervisor,

principal of the school where the grievance originated and president of the

District Teachers’ Association. It has original jurisdiction over grievances of

employees in the district that were not orally resolved in the School Grievance

Committee. Next is the School Division Grievance Committee composed of

school division superintended, district supervisor/chair/coordinator of the district

and the president of the School Division Teachers Association.

 21

Committees possessed original jurisdiction over grievances of employees in

the division that were not orally resolved. If dispute is not settled by the

committees, the aggrieved party can raise an appeal to the Regional Grievance

Committee which composed of regional director, chief or head of Administrative

Division, two (2) division chiefs, two (2) members of the rank and file. It has

original jurisdiction over grievances of employees in the region. The higher

committee level isthe Department Grievance Committee who has original

jurisdiction over grievances of employees in the different bureaus/services/center

and offices in the Central Office that were not orally resolve. It is composed of

highest official responsible for Human Resource Management, two (2) Division

Chiefs, two (2) members of the rank and file, and designated BilisAksyon

Partner.The appointment and jurisdiction of Grievance Committees may vary

depends of the grievance machinery employed by a particular department

(DepEd Memorandum Order No. 35, s. 2004)

Terms, qualification and jurisdiction of an arbitrator/s or committee were

not standardized. These can vary depending on the discretion of governing body

or what is written on the employee handbook. In relation, Skier (2014) said that

establishing and determining proper jurisdiction is paramount in any type of case.

It is important because it’s one of the predictor in determining the power and

limitations of the committee to hear and decide on a specific issue. Different level

of grievance committee has its own set of committees to accept, investigate, and

decide on the grievances and other issues alike.

 22

Grievance committees’ responsibilities

The primary responsibility of grievance committee is to secure at the

lowest level possible and provide equitable solutions to a claim of the aggrieved

person.Grievance committee aimed to settle dispute in the lowest level as

possible which will be sealed by a due arbitration process. Committees were

expected to settle the conflict by rendering acceptable and reasonable decisions

for the settlement of a particular dissatisfaction raised by the person involved.

Olson-Buchanan & Boswell (2008) stated thatan effective grievance

procedure should be aligned with organizational justice which is concerned to fair

and orderly grievance procedures. Timeliness and impartiality in the

dissemination should observe at all times. In recognizing grievance complaint,

grievance committee should consider and entertain complains disregarded the

profile of the person who raise the issue. Committees are also responsible in

conducting thorough investigation and release its decision on the prescribed

time.

DepEDMemorandum Order No. 35, s. 2004 enumerated responsibilities of

grievance committee. These include establishing its own procedures and

strategies, developing and implement pro-active activities, conducting continuing

information drive, conducting dialogue between parties involved, preparing

documentation of grievance, issuing CFAG (Final Action on the Grievance) and

submitting quarterly report to Civil Service Commission Regional Office.Groves

(2013) also enumerated the duties of a grievance committee and included duty to

follow rules of natural justice, act fairly to both parties, decide according to law,
 23

decide all matter referred, and perform duty not to accept hospitality. Of all the

duties and responsibility of a grievance committee, fairness and honesty should

be on top consideration. They should render their decision anchored on these

two.

Another responsibility of committee is to discuss issues on both parties for

them to understand how they come up with such decision. This statement was

supported by (Mateo 2008) when he stated that the role of grievance

committeewas to discuss issue in a manner that would cover the summary of

points of both sides and the explanation on how one had an advantage over

other. Discussing issues at hand, letting persons involved to talk and sharing

their point of view and allotting time to listen before rendering a decision is very

important for the grievance committee.

Wigne (2012) said that the powers and duties of grievance committee are

derived from the agreement of parties even though they perform judicial

functions. The grievance committee is generally under a legal and moral

obligation to perform his functions in a careful manner. It is important that the

member of the committees is honest and trustworthy. Their decision should

depend on the natural law and should not weigh cases with personal assertion.

Discipline Handling

People are all different and every employee is different. Each has a part

personal, and each is a collection of attitudes among staff. This marks some

short-called problem employee. A problem employee is usually a worker whose

 24

performance, both functionally and interpersonally, fails in the mid-range and

surpasses a short average (Gatchalian 2008).Wilson (2016) added that the

problem employee is tough to motivate and generally troublesome to handle.

Problem employee puts additional task on administrators’ workload. Instead of

working for the attainment of organizational goal, they are consuming

administrators’ time and effort in correcting their misdeeds. So, disciplinary action

is on top priority of each administrator.

Most of the time, employee’s conducts that warrant discipline

areunacceptable behavior, poor performance and violation of the company’s

policies, practices or procedures. These are the reasons for management to

review and impose discipline to the employee who commit offensive

behavior.Disciplining employees is a difficult part of supervision and

management.

Employees are uncomfortable with disciplinary action like an instance that

their manager tells them that their performance does not meet the standard(Budd

& Colvin 2008).Disciplinary action on the perception of employee is a treat or

ground for losing their present job or career. It also denotes being uncompetitive

in the workplace.

On the study conducted by Heathfield (2016),shefound out that managers

want to devote their time on realizing company’s goal rather firing an employee.

Imposing discipline is not easy on the part of higher authorities. It calls for serious

analysisof the complaint before imposing it.Obviously, imposing discipline is not

an easy job. Today's employers must implement consistent and fair disciplinary
 25

policies anchored with disciplinary guidelines as a basis for handling employee

misconduct.Disciplining process is not easy on both part of the employer and

employee but effective disseminating will result for the improvement and

realization of company goals and aspirations.

Grounds for disciplinary Actions

The primary objective of discipline is to bring an employee back, where

possible, to an acceptable standard of performance and behavior rather than to

punish an employee (Mintah, 2011). One of the most prevalent errors some

people make about discipline is based on the idea that discipline is a

punishment. The manager who perceives discipline as a punishment process

tends to apply negative sanctions, expecting that those negative sanctions will

have some sort of positive effect. Discipline can be considered as requiring an

administrator and a subordinate or a staff member to work together to solve a

problem. The fundamental task, when possible, is to create a situation which

encourages the administrator to work with a subordinate in mutual terms in order

to identify causes of problematic behavior and to take action to correct those

problems (Murray and 2007).

Article VI of Code of Ethics of Professional Teacher elaborated that a

teacher should make an honest effort to understand and support the legitimate

policies of the school and the administration regardless of personal feeling or

private opinion and shall faithfully carry them out.

 26

Educators are expected to obey above mentioned statement. It is the key

responsibility that he should observe and fulfill during his service; failing to do so

may result to the authorities to impose corresponding actions for the misdeed.

Eby (2005) noted that it is important for workers to be aware of their

company’s tardiness policies and make sure to be honest with their manager if

they are going to be late. Punctuality is valued differently depending on the work

environment or culture but still employee should be aware with this as a ground

for disciplinary action.

Wedaga (2012) itemized grounds for disciplinary actions, namely

dishonesty, oppression, neglect of duty, misconduct, disgraceful and immoral

conduct, being notoriously undesirable, discourtesy in the course of official

duties, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties,

conviction of a crime, unauthorized solicitation, violation of existing Civil Service

Law, falsification of official documents, unauthorized absences or tardiness,

habitual drunkenness, gambling prohibited by law, refusal to perform official duty,

immoral or dishonest, physical or mental incapacity, borrowing money by

superior officers from subordinates, lending money at usurious rates of interest,

willful failure to pay just debts or to pay taxes due the government, and engaging

in partisan political activities. Scheepers (2016) added that a proved negligence

of duty is punishable by dismissal from the service. The same disciplinary action

was render by different institutions worldwide.

Breed (2014) said that employees cannot be disciples for misconduct

committed by them if they were unaware and totally oblivious to the fact that the
 27

misconduct committed by them was punishable and that it was a rule within the

workplace that has been contravened. It denotes that awareness toward

grounds for disciplinary action is very important and employees should poster full

awareness on this aspect.

Penalties for disciplinary actions

One primarily requirements of disciplinary action is that the employee has

the opportunity to correct the unaccepted behaviors. Disciplining employee is a

necessary matter in an organization. Effective discipline may help to correct

employee behavioral issues and may result to increase employees’ productivity.

Progressive discipline is a process for dealing with job-related behavior

that does not meet expected and communicated performance standards. It

provides feedback to the employee so he or she can correct the problem

(Heathfield, 2016).Many public and private companies are taking an innovative

approach to employee discipline that is non-punitive. Positive discipline approach

is being used when informal conversations with employees fail to solve the

existing problem.It involves dealing with employee issues with coaching or

counseling sessions before moving into a disciplinary process. This process

usually involves four steps: oral/verbal warning, written warning, suspension and

termination (Watson 2014).

Oral/verbal warnings are a less confrontational way for a supervisor to

correct an employee problem (Kelchner2012). It is an informal meeting to discuss

issues with the worker struggling with poor performance. Written warning
 28

provides notice to the employee of the consequences for failure to improve and

meet those expectations(Wright 2013). Most of the time, it identifies misconduct

and performance deficiencies of the employees and request improvement within

a certain period of time. It was given when an employee violates company policy

and poster inadequate performance. If an employee continues to fail meeting the

expectations after receiving written warning and did not comply with agreed

improvement in a certain period of time, the management will impose suspension

as disciplinary action. Alburo (2015) added that suspension is also called lay off

which is among the step taken in employee discipline, as punishment for some

major offenses. Suspension may be for a certain period ranging from one to

several days. During the suspension period, the principle of “no work, no pay”

applies, and thus, the employee concerned does not receive his wage for each

and every day he/she is suspended.

Sunga (2006) classified offenses with corresponding penalties into grave,

less grave or light offense, depending on the gravity and effects on the

government service. With his Department Order No. 49, he declares that upon

committing offenses for the first time and it was proven by the authority, the

employee will be penalized with dismissal or removal from service on the

grounds like dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, conviction to

crime, falsification of document, physical or mental incapacity due to immoral or

vicious habits, engage in partisan political activities, nepotism, and disloyalty to

the country.
 29

In the study conducted by Wedaga (2012), he identified schedule of

offenses and relevant punishment of Anglogold Ashanti, a global gold mining

company located at South Africa. AngloGold Ashanti, Obuasi Mine has

developed a code of disciplinary which contains schedule of offences and

relevant punishments or actions. The code consists of three schedules with their

respective sections and these schedules include schedules 1, 2 and 3. Schedule

1 Cases require Security Investigations. The offences under schedule 1 are

classified as serious misconduct and are dismissible offences but this can only

be done after investigation. Schedule 2 also follows suit as schedule 1 in terms

of procedures but punishment can sometimes be waved to suspension for a

period of not more than three months or final warning for any of the offences

under schedule 1 or 2 where Management considers there are mitigating

circumstances. Under schedule 3, all cases are handled at overseer/ Head of

Department level and offenders are awarded with official warnings when found

guilty of the offenses.

Other grounds for penalties are entitled for six months’ suspension upon

first offense and dismissal on his second offense. These are oppression,

disgraceful and immoral conduct, inefficiency and incomplete in the performance,

frequent absences or tardiness, refusal to perform official duty, gross

insubordination, simple neglect of duty, simple misconduct, gross discourtesy in

the course of official duties, violation of existing Civil Service Law, habitual

drunkenness, and failure to file sworn statements of assets, liabilities and net

worth. On the light offenses like discourtesy, unauthorized solicitation, violation of

 30

reasonable rules and regulations, habitual tardiness, gambling prohibited by law,

and refusal to render overtime service will be punishable by a reprimand on first

offense, suspension on second and dismissal for the third time offense.

R.A No. 4670 or known as Magna Carta for Public School Teachers

declaresthat an administrative case against a teacher shall be heard initially by a

committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of the Division

or a duly authorized representative who should at least have the rank of a

division supervisor. Any case file against teacher should be heard and resolve in

accordance with the law.

Demographic Profile`

Age

It is a popular belief that age matters. Man’s physical, psychological and

cognitive usually weaken and retrogress as age progresses. It is a determinant in

the world of work which affects the perception of an individual.

Developmental Tasks Theory (Havighurst 2013) asserted that the

development of a person is continuous throughout the life span, occurring in

stages, where the individual moves from one stage to the next by means of

successful resolution of problems or performance of developmental task. It

includes infants and early childhood (birth to 5 years old), middle childhood (6 to
 31

12 years old), adolescence (13 to 17 years old), early adulthood (18-35 years

old), middle age (36-60 years old), and late maturity (above 60 years old).

Demographic variables have been examined in a number of studies to

determine their effects on the overall level of job satisfaction as well as

satisfaction with various aspects of the job experience by workers in various

positions.Job Descriptive Index measures level of job satisfaction of an employee

in terms of the work itself, technical help, social support, social harmony and

respect, adequate pay, and further advancement. Acceptance and awareness to

company policies were obviously related to these means.

This can be related to the behavior of a newly hired teacher who is very

ideal on all aspects of his profession. As a newly hired employee, he/she is well

motivated; thus, keep on obeying orders, rules, and school policies. Another

reason is he/she wants to establish “good image” toward his/her school head.

Patel, Rajderkar, Naik, Behere (2014)found on their study that job

satisfaction was highly present in the employee ages 25-35 compared to their

counterpart between 36 and 45 years old and 46 to 55 years of age. It denotes

that in the stage of early adulthood, employee poster satisfaction on different

aspects of a job itself including compliance in a specific company policies.

Pushpakumari (2008) and Berube (2010) stated that older employees are

more satisfied than the younger employees in private sector organization. This

was supported by Nifadkar&Dongre (2014) who found out on their study that

employee who are older are likely to be committed to their organization and

verse versa. Therefore, employees stayed in an organization for a long time are
 32

expected to be more aware on what policies and regulations exist on their

organization. Since they stayed long on a particular organization, it denotes that

just like the duration of their stay is the same duration they exposed with

organizational’ rules and policies, thus, awareness toward those are assured.

A person who is on his old age was expected to learn lot of things in his

life and can be a source of evident and real life learning but his physical state

hinders him in some aspect like performing and practicing his uphold wisdom. On

the contrary, younger employee is also expected to become more productive and

involved in realizing organizational goals considering his uphold motivation and

ideals upon entering to a new working environment.

According to Gardner (2013), the older the teacher has become, the better

he/she to her students. It means that if a teacher stays on a teaching for a long

period of time, he/she will learn how to deal with the diversity of students; thus,

he/she will learn how to adopt and accept students’ behavior at any means.

Mahnaz et al (2013) said that among the demographic factors, age is one of the

significant predictors of obedience and loyalty of an employee. As people

aged,his/her perception changed, widens level of understanding on the

occurrence of instances and learns a lot on how to behave toward other people.

Older people learn lot of things in life particularly in human relation compare to

the young ones.

 33

Gender

It is a biological fact that categorizes man into masculine and feminine.

Gender roles are learned patterns of behavior expected in any society. Because

the social status of male is superior to that of female, gender roles both reflect

and reinforce a pattern of man dominance and female domination. The work

experience by men is called “technical” but management and male workers says

that women do require “little technical skills”. The general cross-sectional

tendency has been for men to have more domineering and that woman to be

more passive and nurturing than men (Umali2010).

Johnson (2005) found out on his study that male respondents were found

to be stronger supporters of existing progressive employee disciplinary policies

than their female counterparts. It means that male worker supports the

dissemination of company policies; thus, obeying those rules and policies is not

that hard for them.

On the study conducted by Camgoz, et. al. (2016)entitled “Job Insecurity

and Turnover Intentions: Gender Differences and the Mediating Role of Work

Engagement, they concluded that female is more afraid to lose a job compared

to men. If women are more afraid to lose a job, then, there is a tendency that

they are aware of the existing rules and procedures of a company where they

work for and follow every single detail of it.

According to the study conducted by Groysberg (2013), companies with

more women on their board perform better in corporate governance and ethical

behavior. It explains the advantages of having female in a workforce. Female

 34

perform desirable result of a specific job compared to men and are more ethical

behavior conscious like they keep on choosing to obey company policies.

Female teachers tend to be more patient in their work which positively influences

their performance. This can be concluded that women are more easily to manage

compare to men because ethical behavior plays a big role in handling human

resource in an organization.

The book entitled “The Essential Aristotle quoted that “men are praised for

knowing both how to rule and how to obey”. Contradictory to upper mentioned

facts, he claimed that men in nature are good leaders and obedient followers of

authority. It is one reason why lot of articles claiming that men are good in

management compared to women like what Hull (2010) said that men are best

bosses than women.

Sarfaty, et. al. (2007) conducted a study among 20 academic medical

faculties at eleven different medical schools in the National Faculty Survey. The

said study revealed that faculty members were relatively unaware of the possible

uses of negotiation to advance their work in academic and proved that male

faculty member see negotiation as important to an academic career. For male

employees, settlement of any discontentment and conflict is very important and

should be settled as early as possible. The mentioned literatures and results of

studies are contradicting whether who is more obedient between the two sexes.

However, on the study conducted by Nifadkar&Dongre (2014), they found out

that there is no significant relationship between gender and organizational

 35

commitment. It means that the gender of the employee was not a predictor of

being obedient or committed to an institution.

Length of Service

A study conducted by Tillman (2008) showed that the length of service of

teachers in Upstate South Carolina was not positively correlated with job

satisfaction. The number of years a person is engaged in a particular job has

nothing to do with his/her contentment toward work. Job satisfaction is not a

predictor of ones’ commitment and obedience toward different aspect of his/her

job.

Kelarijani, et. al, (2014) found out in their study that length of service was

related to continuous and occupational commitment of an employee. This means

that the number of years spent by an employee in an organization directly affects

how an employee behave toward company’s rules and regulations. The longer

their stay in a company is the deeper their attachment to it. So, the longer an

employee stays in an organization may affect level of awareness toward

company’s policies. Contradictory to the aforementioned findings, studies of

Chungtai& Zafar (2006) revealed that there is no significant relationship between

tenure and commitment on awareness toward rules and regulations of an

institution. The lack of significant relationship between tenure and commitment in

determining institutional rules and regulations could, perhaps, be as a result of

the fact that, employee who stays longer with the organization may find the

workplace boring and therefore develop the feeling of leaving the institution.
 36

It is in relationship with what Gonzales (2015) implies that the teacher who

stayed in the profession for a long time makes it ideal for performing and

teaching their students well. He continues that length of service in teaching is

one of the factors of work success.

Present Rank or Designation

Brown (2008)found out that satisfaction level of well - being depends on

the ordinal rank of an individual. A representation of ones’ satisfaction may be

seen on how people act toward his work, co-employees or even in dealings with

company rules and regulations. Being high rank personnel or having highest

designation contributes to the self-esteem of an individual. It gives security and

assurance. Being aware with organization’s goals and its rules and regulation is

another predictor of employees’ satisfaction in a way that it is one of the integral

part of an institution.

Another study conducted by Eyupoglu& Sane (2009) unproved that

present rank/designation was a reliable predictor of job satisfaction. Thus, even

the highest rank employee poster dissatisfaction toward work and other matters

related to work itself like awareness toward company rules and policies.

Dissatisfaction may be rooted from different aspects of a job like its workplace,

colleaguesandhigher authority, and even policies existed in an organization.

Educational Attainment

By "successful teaching", it means that the learner actually acquires some

reasonable and acceptable level of proficiency from what the teacher is engaged
 37

in teaching (Berlimer, 2005). Being an effective teacher means that the content

taught was accorded with the prescribed standard of competence and

completeness of a learning content. It is employing appropriate teaching

strategies which are intended to enhance the totality of learners. Gonzales

(2015) revealed in their study that educational attainment is one of the important

factors which affects teaching competency and effectiveness of a teacher. Being

a competent and effective teacher does not solely rely on how effective his/her

teaching strategies is but it also fastened on how a teacher dealt with the

prescribed institutional rules and regulation like on grievances and discipline

handling.

There is an expectation on the higher educational attainment of a teacher.

It is more expected that he/she is more efficient and effective in the field of

teaching and poster better job performance. Meanwhile, in the study conducted

by Igloso (2016) where she intended to determine the predictors of achievement

and job satisfaction of women, it shows that profile-related factors such as

educational attainment, length of service and family income significantly related

to job satisfaction and achievement of women managers. Having higher

educational attainment means having favorable high level of awareness on

institutions’ rules and regulations as well as being obedient toward the said rules

and regulations.

Nifadkar&Dongre (2014) conducted a study entitled “Impact of job

satisfaction and demographic factors on organizational commitment among Girls’

College, Pune, India” where they found out that an employee who is highly
 38

educated is less likely to be committed to his organization and verse versa. The

implication of these findings is that teachers who are highly educated may not

find it difficult in securing another teaching job at other school or in industry.

Therefore, they are less likely to be committed in familiarizing themselves with

the existing rule and regulations of the institution because they don’t have any

barrier when leaving the institution.

The different literature and studies presented in this chapter have direct

bearing to the present study since it talks about grievance management

procedure and discipline handling employed in an institution.

Grievance Management Procedure

Teachers and school administrators in public schools are all duly licensed

professional teachers. Hence, they should act properly in accordance with their

oath and should always adhere to the policy guidelines mandated by the

department and the profession they belong. But given that these professionals

are humans, too, that commit mistakes, there are various cases wherein some of

them experience discomfort, biases, inequalities, and unpleasant attitude of

administrator or employee towards work. Thus, this may lead them to have

grievances.

Grievances are commonly results of attitude towards work, discomfort and

dissatisfaction of either the employee or the management while at work.

Kottawatta&Piyasen (2016) stated that discipline and discharge were the

traditional reasons grounds of grievance. They added that the conflicts between
 39

employer and employee within the workplace as an additional reason. Moreover,

the grounds for grievances were summed up by Sarmiento (2009) in his book

“Education Law and the Private Schools; A Practical Guide for Educational

Leaders and Policy Maker” as he revealed them as follow: unsatisfactory working

conditions, improper, tedious or laborious work assignment, faculty tool or

equipment, unsatisfactory personnel and/or work process, improper placement

and selection or personnel, arbitrary. They were all the same with the findings of

Gupta & Shukla (2011) and Mubarak, Aziz, Shariff (2014) but they added

individual nature of a teacher, lack of medical facilities and economic instances

like pay scale as another grounds for grievance. All and all, these grounds for

grievances cause discomfort to the employee and employer as well. In this

matter, everybody must be well informed about the aforementioned grounds so

as to help them avoid committing such things.

To resolve issues immediately and to ensure fairness between two parties

facing the grievant complaints, fairness in disseminating investigation should be

observed. It supports the idea of Sorenson & Goldsmith (2009). Mc Connell

(2014) and Cohen (2015) added that employers are required by the law to

provide their employees with a method of dealing with grievances in a timeous

and proper fashion and the procedure itself must be followed properly and fairly.

Both believed that it is very important in the developmental management

process.

Integrity and credibility are in great significant to the members of grievance

committee. This is to ensure that there are no imperfections on their characters

 40

and that their honesty is proven to assure that the investigation of the case was

reviewed well and that they have rendered reliable and fair decisions. This is

supported by the Memorandum No. 35 s. 2004 singed by Luz as stipulated in the

memorandum, he had made that in the appointment and election of the members

of grievance committee, their characters, specifically, their integrity, probity,

sincerity and credibility shall be considered.

When it comes to jurisdiction of grievance committees, this varies in

different institution. Just like in the Department of Education, jurisdiction of

grievance committees is in hierarchical position and is divided into central,

regional, division and school level. As Skier (2014) said, different level of

grievance committee has its own set of committees to accept, investigate, and

decide on the grievances and other issues alike. Grievances should be solved in

the lowest level as possible and avoid escalating to higher committee. Dispute or

dissatisfaction should be settled as early as possible in order to regain

harmonious relationship within the workplace.

Concerning the responsibilities of the members of grievance committees,

they should deviate themselves from their personal opinions and judgment that

favors a person known to him concerning the issue. Fairness and honesty were

pointed by Groves (2013) as the top considerations in decision-making of the

grievance committees. Wigne (2012) supported this statement as he mentioned

in his study that the decision of the grievance committee should depend on the

natural law and did not weigh cases with personal assertion. Groves (2013)

presented the responsibilities of grievance committee in general, applicable in

 41

any institution and was enumerated by Luz specifically as to: form their own

procedures and strategies and implement them; ensure the continuing

information drive, conduct dialogue between parties involved, prepare

documentation of grievance, issuing CFAG (Final Action on the Grievance) and

submit quarterly report to Civil Service Commission Regional Office. Given the

aforementioned responsibilities, members of grievance committee should see to

it that they adhere to the set standards and process in dealing with the case

assigned to them.

Discipline Handling

Most commonly, those who underwent grievance procedures are the

problem employees who tend to show untoward actions, concerning work

dissatisfaction, problems with colleagues or even administrator. These types of

employees are subjected to disciplinary action not to punish them but rather to

lead them in becoming efficient and effective employee.

But doing this is not easy as what Wilson (2016) believes that the problem

employee is tough to motivate and generally troublesome to handle. This is the

same with the thoughts of Budd & Colvin (2008) which stated that disciplining

employees is one of the most difficult parts of supervision and management. It is

because employees are uncomfortable with disciplinary actions. They speculate

that it may lead them to losing their jobs. Effective discipline handling should be

observed at all times in the workplace because it contributes to the success of

realizing the goals and aspiration of the institution.

 42

Though employees display undesirable behavior, Heathfield (2016) found

out in her study that managers want to devote their time on realizing company’s

goal rather firing an employee. So, it means that administrator wants to

implement disciplinary actions in a positive way which aims to redirect his

employee to regain efficiency and competitiveness. This was supported by

Mintah (2011) and noted that the primary objective of discipline is to bring an

employee back, where possible, to an acceptable standard of performance and

behavior rather than to punish him.

As Murray and Strauss (2007) believes, the fundamental task in discipline

is to create a situation which encourages the administrator to work with a

subordinate in mutual terms in order to identify causes of problematic behavior

and to take action to correct those problems. Proper communication between

the parties is advised to avoid misunderstanding and to assure positive result of

the disciplinary action. As a response, the teacher under the disciplinary action

should adhere to Article VI of Code of Ethics of Professional Teacher which

states that regardless of personal feeling or opinion, he/she shall carry out the

legitimate policies of an educational institution.

Specifically, the grounds for disciplinary actions were pointed out by

Sunga (2006) andWedaga (2012) on their works. These are unpleasant

behaviors towards colleagues, administrator or vice versa, misconduct, and

unsatisfactory actions towards work. All of these may result to dismissal from

work or service. Consequently, both teachers and administrator can be

subjected for disciplinary action if found guilty. Sunga (2006) also presented the
 43

levels of offenses and categorized as grave, less grave and light offenses with

reprimand, suspension, and dismissal in the present work as the corresponding

penalties.

Demographic Profile

Demographic variables have been examined in a number of studies to

determine their effects on the overall level of job satisfaction as well as

satisfaction with various aspects of the job experience by workers in various

position including their level of awareness and compliance with the rules and

regulations of an educational institutions. Pushpakumari (2008) and Berube,

(2010) stated that older employees are more satisfied than the younger

employees in private sector organization. This was supported by

Nifadkar&Dongre (2014) who found out on their study that employees who are

older are likely to be committed to their organization and verse versa. Therefore,

employees stayed in an organization for a long time are expected to be more

aware on what policies and regulations implemented on their organization.

While on the study of Camgoz, et. al. (2016) proved that female is more

afraid to lose a job compared to men. If women are more afraid to lose a job,

then there is a tendency that she is aware of the existing rules and procedures of

a company where she works and follows every single detail of it. But, a study

conducted by Tillman (2008) showed that the length of service of teachers was

not positively correlated with job satisfaction. It is not a predictor of ones’

commitment and obedience toward different aspect of his/her job like being
 44

aware of grievance management procedure and discipline handling. However,

Chungtai& Zafar (2006). Kelarijani et. al. (2014) contradicts with their ideas and

said that length of service is related to continuous and occupational commitment

of an employee. This means that the number of years spent by an employee in

an organization directly affects how an employee behave toward company’s rules

and regulations.

With regards to present rank/designation, Brown (2008) claimed that the

satisfaction level of a well - being towards work depends on the ordinal rank of an

individual. Being aware of the organization’s goals and its rules and regulation is

another predictor of employees’ satisfaction for it is one of the integral parts of an

institution. Eyupoglu& Sane (2009) contradicted it when they claimed that

present rank/designation is a reliable predictor of being obedient with rules and

regulations of an institution. Even the highest ranked employee poster

dissatisfaction towards work and other matters related to work itself like

awareness toward company rules and policies.

Specifically, highest educational attainment was believed by Gonzales

(2015) as one of the important factors which affects teaching competency and

effectiveness of a teachers. Being a competent and effective teacher does not

solely rely on how effective his/her teaching strategies are. But it is also fastened

on how a teacher dealt with the prescribed institutional rules and regulation like

on grievances and discipline handling. This was supported by Igloso (2016) who

said that educational attainment was significantly related to employee’s

 45

satisfaction with all aspects of his/her work including the mandated grievance

management procedure and discipline handling.

The findings of different researchers regarding grievance management

procedure and discipline handling and the aim of the Department of Education

which is to protect their employee from committing unlawful course of action are

the reasons that motivated the researcher to pursue the study on determining the

teachers’ level of awareness on grievance management procedure and discipline

handling.

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored to the Social Contract Theory which states that

“morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior that rational people

would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well”. Considering this

theory, teachers’ moral and/or political obligations depend upon a contract of

agreement among them to form the society in which they live in. It means that

teachers’ compliance toward their work responsibilities was based on their

agreed circumstances.

This also suggests that people tend to commit mistakes in the absence of

rules and regulations that should be governing them. Ignorance is not an excuse,

but is one of the key reasons why human is kept on doing and repeating actions

incongruence to the law set by an institution. Teachers who are not aware of the

existing rules and regulations of an institution may commit actions which are

against the prescribe standards of an institution.

 46

The Social Rule System Theory was also considered in this study. It

states that the implementation of rules – and the maintenance of some order –

always calls for cumulative experience, adjustment, adaptation, and others. In

such ways, normative and institutional innovation is generated. This is very bold

in some institutions which exemplify excellent management procedure and keep

on working out toward the enhancement of their existing rules and regulations.

Persons involved in a given institution use their institutional knowledge of

relationships, roles, norms, and procedures to guide and organize their actions

and interactions in order to cope with the changes made for the enhancement

and betterment of an employed institutional rules and regulations.

Encouraging others to follow or obey the newly implemented institutional

rules and regulations is not easy. Administrator or law implementer should be

flexible enough to cope up with the demands in implementing the said rules and

regulations successfully.

Another theory that was considered in this study is the Deontological

Theory (Immanuel Kant) which was described as "duty-based" or "obligation-

based" ethics because Deontologists believe that ethical rules bind people to

their duty. For example, a teacher is being subjected into a case wherein a

student got accidentally injured while moving around the classroom. It was an

accident but still, it may be taken against the teacher due to the substitute

parental authority given to them by the law. This theory implies that a teacher has

a duty to act in accordance with a moral norm. Even those responsibilities were

not written black and white; still, they assume the responsibilities because their
 47

conscience told them to do so. Just like on how teachers follow rules and

regulations of an institutions where they worked, there are times that some of

them refuse to commit those deplorable behaviors because they are aware that it

is not morally upright and is against the moral conduct. Though sometimes, there

are few who, even despite the presences of rules and regulations of an

institution, keep on employing those undesirable work behaviors.

Awareness on the existing law or institutional rules/regulations put

boundary on the action of the person or a teacher to avoid being subjected in

grievance management procedure and discipline handling. If teachers

possessed high level of awareness toward handling grievances and discipline,

there is big possibility that he/she may not commit behavior which is against to it

because they know which acceptable and unacceptable course of action is.

Teachers’ awareness toward grievance management procedure will serve as

their guide and protection in fulfilling their duties and moral obligations as an

agent of change.
 48

Research Paradigm

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Demographic Profile of  Administration
respondents of Survey
 Age Questionnaire
 Gender
 Length of service  Data Gathering
 Present
rank/designation
 Highest educational
attainment  Tallying of the
results based on
the survey Acceptable
Level of Awareness on
Grievance Management questionnaire Infographic Materials
Procedure in terms of; on Grievance
 grounds for grievance  Preparations of Management
 grievance procedure tables Procedure and
 grievance committee Discipline Handling
 grievance committee’s
jurisdiction  Applying and
 grievance committee’s utilizing
responsibilities appropriate
statistical tools
Level of Awareness on
Discipline Handling in
terms of;  Interpretations
 grounds for of the results
disciplinary actions
 penalties for
disciplinary actions

Figure 1. A Schematic Diagram in determining the level of awareness of public

secondary school teachers on Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline
Handling.

Figure 1 describes the general structure and guides for the direction of this

study. It follows the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model wherein it examines the

relationship between variables of the study (input), their interaction (process) with

each other and the subjective and objective outcomes of this interaction (output).
 49

In this study,the inputs include Demographic profile of

therespondents(age, gender, length of service, present rank/designation and

highest educational attainment), Level of Awareness on DepEd Grievance

Management Procedure (grounds for grievance, grievance procedure, grievance

committee, grievance committees’ jurisdiction as well as responsibilities) and the

respondents’ Level of Awareness on Grounds and Penalties for disciplinary

action. It intended to measure the Level of awareness of public secondary

school teachers on Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

In order to make the study possible, a systematic process followed. This

involved administration of the survey questionnaire, gathered, and analyzed data.

Based on the result, an Infographic Material on Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling was developed as an output which was also

subjected to acceptability test.

 50

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides the research design and statistical treatment

used in the study. Likewise, this identifies the respondents and the sampling

techniques employed. Validation techniques for the instrument, data gathering,

and evaluation of the output complete the procedures.

Locale of the Study

This study was conducted in the selected public secondary schools in the

Second District of Quezon.These schools are Quezon National High School

(Lucena), Lutucan National High School (Sariaya), Sta. Catalina National High

School (Candelaria), and Recto Memorial National High School (Tiaong). These

locales were chosen since they are the immediate environment where access of

data is greatly possible.

Research Design

The descriptive research design was used to facilitate the study. Salaria

(2012) defined descriptive research as devoted to the gathering of information

about prevailing conditions or situations for the purpose of description and

interpretation. This type of method is not simply tabulating facts but includes

proper analysis, interpretation, comparisons, identification of trends and

relationship. In addition, Kowalczyk (2015) noted that descriptive research is

design to depict the participants in an accurate way. The researcher used

 51

descriptive research because of its appropriateness. Moreover, her readings

proved that it is the most applicable design to get accurate findings for the study.

Specifically, the descriptive survey was utilized since the researcher

administered survey questionnaire to the participants in order to determine the

level of awareness of public secondary school teacher toward Grievance

Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

Population and Sampling

A total of 160 teachers from the identified and categorized big schools per

municipality in the Second District of Quezon namely Quezon National High

School, Lutucan National High School, Sta. Catalina National High School, and

Recto Memorial High School were used as respondents of the study. They were

chosen purposively in order to achieve the objective of the study which is to

determine the awareness of public secondary teachers in the Second District of

Quezon about DepED Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline

Handling.

Research Instrumentation

A checklist questionnaire was used as the main instrument in gathering

the data. This was drafted by the researcher, scrutinized and discussed with the

researcher’s adviser before modification. A cover letter indicating the purpose of

the survey and assurance of the confidentiality of the data was with the

questionnaire. Part I of the questionnaire was designed to provide the

 52

demographic profile of the respondents. Part II aimed to determine the level of

awareness of the respondents toward Grievance Management Procedure while

Part III sought to ascertain respondent’s level of awareness on Discipline

Handling.

Validation of Instrument

Validity is defined as the extent to which a concept is accurately measured

in a quantitative study (Heale 2015). It assesses how an instrument measures

what it intends to measure. In order to assure the correctness of the developed

questionnaire, the researcher sought for the assistance of experts to authenticate

its content.

To further justify the instrument’s validity and reliability, it was piloted to

15public secondary school teachers from the Second District of Quezon. They

were non-respondents who provided valuable information on questionnaire’s

design, word construction and reliability of measurement scales. Pilot testing

provides an opportunity to validate the wording of the tasks, understand the time

necessary for the session, and, if all goes well, may even supply an additional

data point for study (Schade, 2015). It helps to fine-tune usability of the study and

leads to more reliable results. All recommendations gained from validation of

instrument were implemented and reflected in the questionnaire. Then, it was

submitted to researcher’s adviser for approval to distribute the instrument for

administration.
 53

The output of this study underwent content evaluation as well. The

researcher prepared a questionnaire for content validation to assess the

objectives, content, usefulness, and educational significance of the developed

Infographic Material on Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline

Handling. It was distributed to 15 teachers who were composed of school

grievance committee, ICT Coordinator, Head Teacher and public secondary

school teachers.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher first asked for the approval of School Division

Superintendent for the administration of the questionnaires. Upon approval,

another letter of request was given to the principals of the respondent schools for

the researcher to administer the survey questionnaire. The researcher

personally administered questionnaire and explained the reason for conducting

the study. After the retrieval, the gathered data were tallied, tabulated,

statistically analyzed and interpreted. The results of the collected data revealed

the level of awareness of public secondary school teacher toward Grievance

Management Procedure and Discipline Handling. The gathered data served as

the basis of developing an Infographic Material.

Statistical Treatment

The gathered data were analyzed and interpreted using graphs and tables

supported by the use of statistical treatment. For part I of the questionnaire which
 54

identified the demographic profile of the respondents, frequency count and

percentage were used. While on Part II and III, mean and standard deviation

were utilized to identify the level of awareness of the respondent toward

Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

To test the significant relationship between level of awareness of the

teacher-respondents toward Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline

Handling when they are grouped according to demographic profile, Pearson

correlation coefficient (Pearson r) was used. To determine and to test the

significant difference in the level of awareness of among teacher-respondents

toward DepEd Grievance Management Procedures and Discipline Handling, the

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used.

Statistical Formula

1. Mean

2. Standard Deviation

( ∑X ) 2
SStotal = ∑(Xij – X) = ∑X –
2 2
N One Way ANOVA
3.

4. r= N∑xy – (∑x)( ∑7
Pearson r
[N∑x = (∑x)2] [N∑y – (∑y) ]
2 2 2

Likert Scale Descriptive Rating/Description

3.25 -4.00 Fully Aware

2.50 – 3.24 Moderately Aware

 55

1.75 – 2.49 Merely Aware

1.00 – 1.74 Not Aware

 56

Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the gathered data,

which are presented in the form of figures and tables, followed by its inference

and justification from gathered literatures and studies.

Table 1

Distribution of the Respondents According to Age

Age Frequency Percentage
20-29 47 26.25
30-39 years old 57 35.63
40-49 47 26.25
50-59 6 10
Over 60 years old 3 1.88
Total 160 100

Figure 2

Distribution of the Respondents According to Age

57

42 42

16

20 - 29 years 30 -39 years 40 -49 years 50 - 59 years above 60 years

old old old old old
 57

As presented, 57 or 35.63% of the 160 respondents are in the age bracket

30 to 39 years old. It is followed by age ranging between 20-29 with 47 or 26.25

and 40-49 years old with 47 or 26.25% as well. Six or 10% have ages ranging

from 50 to 59 years old and only 3 or 1.88% are over 60 years old. The youngest

respondent is 21 years old while the oldest is 63 years old.

The graph further shows that majority of the teachers are below 49 years

of age which corresponds to 141 respondents or 88.13% of the distribution.

Moreover, the average age of the respondents is 36.98 years. This implies that

the teachers in this study are not too young or too old.

According to Gardner (2013), the older the teacher the better he /she

becomes to his /her students. Older teachers who have seen and heard much

things about their students and their experiences inclined understanding on the

behavior of their students, colleagues, and even on the nature of their work

including rules and regulation implemented. Old employee who worked in an

institution tend to become contented with their present employment because they

think that their age hinders them considering that some institution set age

requirements in hiring employee.

Table 2

Distribution of the Respondents According to Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 55 34.38
Female 105 65.62
Total 160 100
 58

Figure 3

Distribution of the Respondents According to Gender

Male Female

34.38%

65.62%

As shown, out of 160 respondents, 105 or 65.62% are females and 55 or

34.38% are males. The graph further shows that majority of the respondents are

female teachers. This implies that the distribution of the respondents according to

age is dominated by female teachers.

Camgoz, et. al. (2016) explains that female teachers tend to be more

patient in their work which positively influences their performance and being

obedient to institutional policies and regulations. Unlike male who is in nature

possessed “short temper”, majority of the women poster patience in terms of

fulfilling their work. So, talking about patience which is mostly possessed by

women, it is understandable that there would be more female teachers than

male.
 59

Table 3

Distribution of the Respondents According to Length of Service

Length of Service Frequency Percentage
1-5 years 73 45.63
6-10 25 15.63
11-15 21 13.12
16 -20 19 11.87
21-25 10 6.25
Over 26 years 12 7.50
Total 160 100

Figure 4

Distribution of the Respondents According to Length of Service

over 26 12
years

21 - 25 years 10

16 - 20 years 19

11 - 15 years 21

25
6 -10 years

73
1 - 5 years

Of the 160 respondents, 73 or 45.63% are in the service for 1 to 5 years,

25 or 15.63% already spent 6 to 10 years in the service, 21 or 13.12% have 11 to

15 years of experience, 19 or 11.87% have 16 to 20 years of teaching

 60

experience, 12 or 7.50% are over 26 years in the teaching profession and only

10 or 6.25% are in the service for 21 to 25 years.

The figure further shows that majority of the teacher-respondents have at

most 10 years in the service. This accounts for 98 respondents or 61.25% of the

distribution. The youngest in the service only spent a year and the oldest spent at

least 26 years. The average length of service of the respondents is 10 years.

This indicates that teachers are not anymore neophytes in the service. Also,

teacher-respondents are already used with the grinds of the teaching profession.

They are most probably aware with the existing rules and regulations of the

institution considering the years of their service and the duration of their

exposure to it.

Length of service or teaching experience is a barometer of teacher’s

competence and performance. In the study of Gonzales (2015), it was implied

that the teachers who stayed in the profession for a long time makes it ideal for

performing and teaching their students well. He further explained that length of

service in teaching is one of the factors of work success. Teacher may obey rules

and regulations of an institution where he is employed to become successful to

his/her work. Teaching experiences bring a pool of necessary and practical skills,

perceptions, insights and mental modes which may facilitate performance of

teachers.
 61

Table 4

Distribution of the Respondents According

to Present Rank or Designation

Present Rank or Frequency Percentage

Designation
Teacher I 88 55
Teacher II 31 19.38
Teacher III 32 20
Master Teacher I 5 3.12
Master Teacher II 2 1.25
Head Teacher II 1 0.62
Head Teacher III 1 0.62
Total 160 100

Figure 5

Distribution of the Respondents According

to Present Rank or Designation

88

31 32

5
2 1 1

T-1 T-2 T -3 MT - 1 MT - 2 HT - 2 HT - 3

As shown in the figure, 88 or 55% are in the Teacher I position, 32 or 20%

hold the Teacher III position, 31 or 19.38% are designated as Teacher II, and 7

or 4.38% are master teachers. Five (5) of which are Master Teacher I while the
 62

other two (2) are Master Teacher II. Among the respondents, only 2 or 1.25% are

head teachers - one (1) Head Teacher II and one Head Teacher III. It can be

gleaned from the graph that majority of the respondents hold Teacher I position.

This comprised more than half of the distribution. This implies that respondents

of this study are dominated by Teacher I.

Eyupoglu& Sane (2009) argued that rank/designation was not a reliable

predictor of job satisfaction. An employee holding highest or lowest position in an

educational institution also experienced and may express dissatisfaction on

things related to his/her employment. It does not mean that a high ranking

employee will be contented with all the things brought by his/her employment and

just accept and deal with it. Even a designated Master Teacher or a teacher

holding the lowest position may poster dissatisfaction toward work and other

matters related to the work itself like awareness toward company rules and

policies.

Table 5

Distribution of the Respondents According to Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage
Doctorate Degree 2 1.25
with units leading to 6 3.75
Doctorate Degree
Master’s Degree 18 11.25
with unit leading to 91 56.87
Master’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree 43 43.88
Total 160 100
 63

Figure 6

Distribution of the Respondents According to Educational Attainment

Doctorate Degree 2
As shown, out of 160 respondents, 91 or 56.87% are teachers with units leading to m

degr With Units leading to Doctorate Degree 6

ee
18
Master's Degree
hold

ers. 91
With Units leading to Master's Degree

The
43
Bachelor's Degree
grap

further reveals that 134 respondents or 83.75% of the distribution have at most

units leading to master’s degree. This implies that 16.25% of the teacher-

respondent are at least master’s degree holders. Likewise, this suggests a

positive response of teachers to one of the very recent order from DepEd which

is to enroll in the postgraduate studies for continuous professional growth. This

further means that teachers are now more positive on the idea of attending

school after pursuing their bachelor’s degree.

Educational attainment is another barometer of teacher competence and

effectiveness. In the study of Gonzales (2015), it was revealed that educational

attainment is one of the important factors that affect the teaching competency

and effectiveness of teachers. There is an expectation on the higher educational

 64

attainment of a teacher, it is more expected that he/she is more efficient and

effective in the field of teaching and poster better job performance. In teaching

profession, updating knowledge in the field and consistent professional growth

widens teacher’s knowledge toward teaching strategies and methodologies.

Hence, it is encouraged that teachers pursue their graduate studies for they are

expected to have increased knowledge and updated methodologies as they

attain higher degrees. It may help them to widen and uplift their perspectives

toward their profession.

Table 6

Level of Awareness of the Teacher-Respondents toward DepEd

Grievance Management Procedure in terms of
Grounds for Grievances

No.
GROUNDS FOR GRIEVANCE WM Interpretation
1. Physical working condition? 3.05 Moderately Aware
2. Proper handling of financial issues like salaries 3.04 Moderately Aware
and overtime pay?
3. Proper handling of procedure on recruitment and 2.86 Moderately Aware
promotion?
4. Proper handling of procedure in claiming entitled 2.90 Moderately Aware
benefits and incentives?
5. Proper handling of procedure in termination and 2.91 Moderately Aware
retirement?
6. Support of school head on professional growth? 2.97 Moderately Aware
7. Management approach of a school head? 2.97 Moderately Aware
8. Sufficiency of school facilities? 2.92 Moderately Aware
Moderately Aware
Overall Weighted Mean 2.95

Table 6 shows the level of awareness of the teacher-respondents toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms of Grounds for Grievances.

As revealed, teachers are moderately aware that grievance/s is/are

derived from teacher’s dissatisfaction in terms of physical working condition

 65

(WM=3.05), proper handling of financial issues like salaries and overtime pay

(WM=3.04), support of school head on professional growth (WM=2.97),

management approach of a school head (WM=2.97), sufficiency of school

facilities (WM=2.92), proper handling of procedure in termination and retirement

(WM=2.91), proper handling of procedure in claiming entitled benefits and

incentives (WM=2.90) and proper handling of procedure on recruitment and

promotion (WM=2.86).

The table also shows that indicator #3 received the lowest weighted mean

of 2.86 which implies that proper handling of procedure on recruitment and

promotion should be given proper attention since this is the area where teachers

are least aware of. The eight indicator under grounds for grievance obtained an

overall weighted mean of 2.95 which means that teachers are moderately aware

about grounds for grievance.

Sarmiento (2009), Mubarak, Aziz, Shariff (2014), and Kottawatta&Piyasen

(2016) enumerated grounds for grievances and these are physical working

condition, improper placement and selection process, discharge from the

services and contract interpretation. The grounds enumerated by the above-

mentioned authors and the grounds presented to the respondents are the same.

The result of this study implies that none of the teachers are ignorant or have no

knowledge about grounds for grievance. They make an honest effort to

understand and support the legitimate policies of the school as ordered on Article

VI of Code of Ethics of Professional Teacher. But the results also mean that they

are not one hundred percent aware with the grounds of grievances where they
 66

are expected to be fully aware with it and being aware with the existing rules and

regulations of an institution is one way of showing support to the educational

institution where he/she employed.

It can also be interpreted that as public secondary school teachers, they

are expected to possess high level of awareness toward rules and regulations

mandated to within the institution where they worked particularly on the grounds

or things which triggers their dissatisfaction. It is important to possess high level

of awareness toward grounds for grievances for they are not just required to do

so but is may serve as their shield in protecting themselves from committing

undesirable work behavior.

 67

Table 7

Level of Awareness of the Teacher-Respondents towards DepEd Grievance

Management Procedure in terms of Grievance Procedures

No. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES Weighted Interpretation

Mean
1. Grievance procedure hears complaints
successively by School Grievance up to 2.73 Moderately
Department Grievance Committee? Aware
2. Grievance procedure allows DepEd 2.76 Moderately
employees to freely settle their complaints? Aware
3. Grievance procedure is an effective tool in 2.80 Moderately
resolving dispute and conflicts within the Aware
school?
4. Grievance procedure is a useful aid in 2.86 Moderately
strengthening administrators’ decision-making Aware
skills?
5. Grievance procedure employs procedural due 2.87 Moderately
process of complaints? Aware
6. Disciplining authorities are responsible in 2.99 Moderately
handling serious complain like sexual Aware
harassment?
7. Grievance committee may accept and hear 2.93 Moderately
grievance/s presented orally or in written Aware
form?
8. Grievance committee at any level should Moderately
formulate their own grievance management 2.79 Aware
procedure?

Moderately
Overall Weighted Mean 2.84 Aware

Table 7 shows the level of awareness of the teacher-respondents toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms of Grievances Procedures.

As revealed in the data, the teachers are moderately aware that DepEd

disciplining authorities are responsible in handling serious complain like sexual

harassment (WM=2.99), that grievance committee may accept and hear

grievances presented orally or in written form (WM=2.93), that grievance

 68

procedure employs procedural due process of complaints (WM=2.87), that

grievance procedure is a useful aid in strengthening administrators’ decision-

making skills (WM=2.86), that grievance procedure is an effective tool in

resolving dispute and conflicts within the school (WM=2.80), that grievance

committee at any level should formulate their own grievance management

procedure (WM=2.79), that grievance procedure allows DepEd employees to

freely settle their complaints (WM=2.76) and that grievance procedure hears

complaints successively by School grievance up to Department Grievance

Committee (WM=2.73).

Among the eight indicators of grievance procedures, indicator #6 received

the highest weighted mean of 2.99 while indicator #1 obtained the lowest

weighted mean of 2.73. Though both are within the moderately aware, attention

should be given to indicator #1 that grievance procedure hears complaints

successively by School Grievance up to Department Grievance Committee. The

eight indicatorgot an overall weighted mean of 2.84 which indicates that teachers

are moderately aware about the procedures of the Grievance Committee. The

implication of this is that teachers are knowledgeable about the grievance

procedures. It is clear for them but not totally clear that grievance procedure is a

means of internal dispute resolution by which an employee may have his or

her grievances addressed.

The findings agreed with Mc Connell (2014) who reported that employers

are required by the law to provide their employees with a method of dealing

grievances in a timeous and must be followed properly and fairly. It also

 69

suggested that there is an existing method of dealing grievances because

teachers are knowledgeable with the existing grievance procedure implemented

by the educational institution where they employed. Through Luz’s DepEd Order

No. 35 s. 2004, the Department of Education shown it’s obedience by law.

Written on this is the grievance management procedure to be implemented by

the department where all teachers and persons concern are required not just to

understand the content but to put in practice as well. As reported by Tatham

(2005) and Burke (2006), grievance procedure may help both employee and

employees to maintain a good working relationship. Doyle (2005) also added that

it may serve as conflict management and dispute resolution mechanism. This

can be possible because dissatisfaction of both parties was raised, talked about

and settled as early as possible. The unwanted course of action will be

eliminated through an effective grievance management procedure, thus, both

parties will be beneficial.

 70

Table 8

Level of Awareness of the Teacher-Respondents towards DepEd

Grievance Management Procedure in terms
of Grievance Committee

No.
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE Weighted Interpretation
Mean
1. School Grievance Committee is composed of Principal 2.84 Moderately
or Head Teacher, Faculty President & Teacher? Aware
2. District Grievance Committee is composed of District Moderately
Supervisor, Principal, and President of the District 2.69 Aware
Teachers Association?

3. Schools Division Grievance Committee is composed of Moderately

School Division Superintendent, District Supervisor, 2.63 Aware
and President of School Division Teachers
Association?
4. Regional Grievance Committee is composed of
Regional Director, Chief/Head of Administrative 2.53 Moderately
Division, Two Division Chiefs, Two Members of the Aware
Rank in File and Designated BilisAksyon Partner?
5. Department Grievance Committee is composed of
Highest Official, Two Division Chiefs, Two Members of 2.46 Merely Aware
the Rank and File, and Designated BilisAksyon
Partner?
6. Department, Regional, Division, District, and School
grievance committee should observe sincerity and 2.58 Moderately
credibility at all times? Aware

7. Department, Regional, Division, District, and School Moderately

committees should create their own appropriate and 2.53 Aware
relevant rules of procedures in solving grievance/s?

8. Department, Regional, Division, District, School

committees’ decision should be rendered within 15 2.37 Merely Aware
days?

9. There will be a separate committee in the central, Moderately

regional, division, district, and school offices? 2.53 Aware

Moderately
Overall Weighted Mean 2.57 Aware

Table 8 shows the level of awareness of the teacher-respondents toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms of Grievance Committee.

 71

As presented, teachers are moderately aware that school grievance

committee is composed of principal or head teacher, faculty president and

teacher (WM=2.84), that district grievance committee is composed of district

supervisor, principal, and president of district teachers association (WM=2.69),

that schools division grievance committee is composed of school division

superintendent, district supervisor and president of school division teachers

association (WM= 2.63), that department, regional, division, district, school

grievance committee should observe sincerity and credibility at all times

(WM=2.58), that department, regional, division, district and school committees

should create their own appropriate and relevant rules of procedures in solving

grievances (WM=2.53), that there will be a separate committee in the central,

regional, division, district and school offices (WM=2.53) and that regional

grievance committee is composed of regional director, chief or head of

administrative division, two division chiefs, two members of the rank in file and

designated BilisAksyon Partner (WM=2.53).

On the other hand, teachers are merely aware that department grievance

committee is composed of highest official, two division chiefs, two members of

the rank and file and designated BilisAksyon Partner (WM=2.46) and that

department, regional, division, district, school committees’ decision should be

rendered within 15 days (WM=2.37).

It can be inferred from the table that as the scope of Grievance committee

goes wider/ larger, the level of awareness of the teacher-respondents tends to

decrease. This implies that teachers’ level of awareness on grievance committee

 72

varies as the scope of committee goes wider. The nine indicators under

grievance committee obtained an overall weighted mean of 2.57 which indicates

that teachers are MODERATELY AWARE of about the composition of Grievance

Committee from school level up to the department level.

The result proved that most teachers are aware with the content of

Memorandum Order No. 35. S. 2004 by Luz. On the other hand, public

secondary school teachers may exert extra effort to make themselves more

knowledgeable with the composition of the grievance committee most specially

on the designated personnel in Department Grievance Committee. It also

denotes that they are obeying the existing policies on the composition of

grievance committee which can be proved through the level of awareness as

shown on the result of this study.

Table 9
Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents towards DepEd Grievance
Management Procedures in terms of Grievance
Committees’ Jurisdiction
No. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES’ JURISDICTION WM
Interpretation
1. School Grievance Committee has jurisdiction over
grievances of teachers and non-teaching personnel in the 2.73 Moderately
school? Aware
2. District Grievance Committee has jurisdiction over Moderately
grievances of employees in the district that were not orally 2.66 Aware
resolved?
3. Schools Division Grievance Committee possesses original Moderately
jurisdiction over grievances of employee in the division 2.64 Aware
that were not orally resolved?
4. Regional Grievance Committee has original jurisdiction Moderately
over grievances of employee in the region that were not 2.57 Aware
orally resolved?
5. Department Grievance Committee has original jurisdiction Moderately
over grievances of employee in the bureau and offices in 2.57 Aware
the Central Office that were not orally resolved?
6. solving grievant issues should be in hierarchical 2.73 Moderately
processes? Aware
Moderately
Overall Weighted Mean 2.65 Aware
 73

Table 9 shows the level of awareness of the teacher-respondents toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms of Grievance Committees’

Jurisdiction.

As presented, teachers are moderately aware that school grievance

committee has jurisdiction over grievances of teachers and non-teaching

personnel in the school (WM=2.73), that solving grievant issues should be in

hierarchical processes (WM=2.73), that district grievance committee has

jurisdiction over grievances of employees in the district that were not orally

resolved (WM=2.66), that schools division grievance committee possesses

original jurisdiction over grievances of employee in the division that were not

orally resolved (WM=2.64), that regional grievance committee has original

jurisdiction over grievances of employee in the region that were not orally

resolved (WM=2.57) and that department grievance committee has original

jurisdiction over grievances of employee in the bureau and offices in the central

office that were not resolved orally (WM=2.57).

It can be inferred from the table that as the grievance committees’

jurisdiction goes higher, the level of awareness of the teacher-respondents

decreases. This implies that teachers are much aware of the school grievance

committees’ jurisdiction than districts’, divisions’, regionals’ and departments’

jurisdiction. The six (6) indicators under grievance committees’ jurisdiction

obtained an overall weighted mean of 2.65 which indicates that teachers are

moderately aware about the jurisdiction of the grievance committee from the

school level up to the department level.

 74

According to Skier (2014), establishing and determining proper jurisdiction

is paramount in any type of case. It is important because it is one of the

predictors in determining the power and limitations of the committee to hear and

decide on specific issue. Different level of grievance committee has its own set

of committees to accept, investigate, and decide on the grievances and other

issues alike raised by the employee or employer. Based on the result of the

study, the DepED grievance management procedure in terms of determining the

grievance committee’s jurisdiction was disseminated effectively because teacher-

respondents are knowledgeable with it.

Table 10

Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents towards DepEd Grievance

Management Procedures in terms of Grievance Committees’
Responsibilities

No.
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES’ RESPONSIBILITIES WM Interpretati
on
1. Establishing its own procedures and strategies? 2.75 Moderately
Aware
2. Developing pro-active activities to prevent 2.69 Moderately
grievances? Aware
3. Implementing Employee Assembly, “Talakayan”, and 2.55 Moderately
Counseling at least once every quarter? Aware
4. Conducting continuing information drive on the 2.52 Moderately
Grievance Machinery? Aware
5. Conducting dialogue between and among the parties 2.74 Moderately
involved? Aware
6. Issuing Final Certification on Final Action on the 2.61 Moderately
Grievance? Aware
7. Preparing minutes of proceedings and activities? 2.74 Moderately
Aware
8. Directing documentation of grievance (like signing of 2.70 Moderately
written agreements reached by the parties involved) Aware
9. submitting quarterly accomplishment report? 2.57 Moderately
Aware
Moderately
Overall Weighted Mean 2.65 Aware
 75

Table 10 shows the level of awareness of the teacher-respondents toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure in terms of Grievance Committees’

Responsibilities.

As revealed in the table above, teachers are moderately aware that

grievance committee is responsible: in establishing its own procedures and

strategies (WM=2.75), in conducting dialogue between and among the parties

involved (WM=2.74), in preparing minutes of proceedings and activities

(WM=2.74), in directing documentation of grievance (WM=2.70), in developing

pro-active activities to prevent grievances (WM=2.69), in issuing final certification

on final action on the grievance (WM=2.61), in submitting quarterly

accomplishment report (WM= 2.57), in implementing employee assembly,

“Talakayan” and counseling at least once every quarter (WM=2.55) and in

conducting continuing information drive on the grievance machinery (WM=2.52).

Generally, the computed overall weighted mean is 2.65 which implies that

teachers are moderately aware of the responsibilities of the grievance committee.

Since the result shows that respondents are moderately aware of the

responsibilities of grievance committee, they still need to equip themselves with

the necessary information to strengthen their level of awareness. Dealing with

grievance committee only occurs if there’s a case or issue at hand that is

required to be settled. Consequently, teachers are not fully aware with it because

it only happens occasionally in their school.

 76

In relation, Mateo (2008) said that grievance committees are reliable for

accepting charges or complaints, discussing issues and settling it in the lowest

level as possible. Moreover, they are also morally and legally obliged to perform

judicial functions (Wigwe, 2012). The results proved that teachers are aware of

the responsibilities of a grievance committees since they poster awareness on

the above-mentioned notions. They know that grievance committees are

accountable and reliable in dealing with complains and handling issues for its

settlement.

Table 11

Summary of Levels of Awareness among Teacher-Respondents toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedures

Grievance Management Procedures Overall Interpretation

Weighted Mean
1.Grounds for grievance 2.95 Moderately Aware

2. Grievance procedures 2.84 Moderately Aware

3. Grievance Committee 2.53 Moderately Aware

4. Grievance committees’ jurisdiction 2.65 Moderately Aware

5. Grievance committees’ 2.65 Moderately Aware

responsibilities
Grand Weighted Mean 2.72 Moderately Aware

As shown in Table 11, among the five aspects, grounds for grievance

received the highest weighted mean of 2.95 which means that teachers are

moderately aware of the grounds for grievance. It is followed by the grievance

procedures which gained an overall weighted mean of 2.84 and is still within the
 77

moderate level of awareness. Tied on the third rank are the grievance

committees’ jurisdictions and responsibilities which both received an overall

weighted mean of 2.65. The area that received the least level of awareness

among teacher-respondents is on the composition of grievance committee from

the school level up to department level which received a weighted mean of 2.53.

This finding suggests that teachers should be oriented on the composition of the

grievance committee at each level and that it is from the school level up to

department level. Further, a grand weighted mean of 2.72 suggests that teachers

are moderately aware about DepEd Grievance Management Procedures.

Table 12

Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents toward Discipline Handling

of DepEd in terms of Grounds for Disciplinary Action

No. GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY Weighted

ACTION Mean Interpretation

1. Understand and support legitimate Moderately Aware

policies of the school? 3.23
2. Poster honesty, fulfill duties at all Fully Aware
times and obey orders from 3.26
authorities?
3. Avoid frequent absenteeism and 3.34 Fully Aware
tardiness?
4. Avoid habitual drunkenness? 3.39 Fully Aware
5. Refrain from falsification of official 3.38 Fully Aware
documents?
6. Refrain from acting violently in the Fully Aware
workplace during official duty? 3.41
7. Avoid stealing any of the school 3.39 Fully Aware
property?
8. Refuse possessing or using 3.39 Fully Aware
alcoholic beverages and illegal
drugs in the school premises?
9. Decline unauthorized solicitation at 3.30 Fully Aware
any means?
Overall Weighted Mean 3.34 Fully Aware
 78

As shown in Table 12, teachers are fully aware that they should refrain

from acting violently in the workplace during official duty (WM=3.41), that they

should avoid habitual drunkenness (WM=3.39), that they should avoid stealing

any of the school property (WM=3.39), that they should refuse possessing or

using alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs in the school premises (WM=3.39),

that they should refrain from falsification of official documents (WM=3.38), that

they should avoid frequent absenteeism and tardiness (WM=3.34), that they

should decline unauthorized solicitation at any means (WM=3.30) and that they

should poster honesty, fulfill duties at all times and obey orders from authorities

(WM=3.26). Also, teachers are moderately aware that they should understand

and support legitimate policies of the school.

The nine (9) indicators posted an overall weighted mean of 3.34 which

indicates that teachers are fully aware about the grounds for disciplinary action.

This area obtained the highest level of awareness among teachers basically

because these areas involved them. They are informed about what to be avoided

or refrained from doing and what should they do for them not to receive any

disciplinary action.

Similarly, Breed (2014) said that employees cannot be disciplined for

misconduct committed by them if they were unaware and totally oblivious to the

fact that the misconduct committed by them was punishable and that it was a rule

within the workplace that has been contravened. It is, therefore, imperative that

the company implements a disciplinary code. The result proved that teachers are

well-informed about the grounds of disciplinary action in the DepED because the
 79

results itself show that they are fully aware of the different grounds mentioned by

Sunga (2006) like dishonesty, falsification of official documents, acting violently

at work, theft and unauthorized solicitation. The result is in alignment with Article

VI of Code of Ethics of Professional Teacher which states that teachers should

understand and support the legitimate policies of the school.

The result of this study showing teachers’ level of awareness determined

that respondents are knowledgeable with what to do and not to do in order to

avoid disciplinary action. As public secondary school teachers who are

committed in molding young souls, they are expected to be fully aware on this

aspect since grounds for disciplinary actions are linked and reflected to their own

set of values as individual.

Working in a conducive environment is very important and this can be

possible if teachers possessed high level of respect for each co-teachers and

administrators and free from arguments or negative perceptions toward work.

Through familiarization with the grounds and penalties of disciplinary action,

teachers may protect themselves from committing disagreeable work behavior.

Based on the result, this can be interpreted that teachers are fully aware with the

things that they should avoid for them to be an obedient government employee.

They are also cognizant with those undesirable behaviors that a human being

should avoid. It is very clear that public secondary school teacher knowswell

how to be physically and emotionally obedient toward rules and regulations

mandated by the institution where he worked. They feel the need to be morally
 80

obliged to follow certain rules of an institution in order to meet the standard set by

human environment.

Table 13

Level of Awareness of Teacher-Respondents toward Discipline Handling

of DepEd in terms Penalties for Disciplinary Action

No. PENALTIES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION Weighted Interpretation

Mean
1.. DepED employs “progressive discipline 2.99 Moderately
approach” in imposing discipline? Aware
2. In “progressive discipline approach,” oral 2.93 Moderately
warning, written warning, suspension, and Aware
dismissal are observed?
3. Written warning provides notice to the 2.99 Moderately
employee of the consequences of his Aware
misconduct?
4. DepED classifies offenses into grave, less 2.89 Moderately
grave, and light grave offenses? Aware
5. Grave offenses are punishable by dismissal 2.99 Moderately
or removal from the service? Aware
6. Less grave offenses are punishable by six Moderately
months suspension on 1st offense and 2.73 Aware
dismissal on the 2 nd offense?
7. Light offenses are punishable by oral Moderately
reprimand on the 1st offense, suspension on 2.79 Aware
nd rd
the 2 and dismissal for the 3 offense?
Moderately
Overall Weighted Mean 2.90 Aware

As presented in table 13, teachers are moderately aware that DepEd

employs progressive discipline approach in imposing discipline (WM=2.99), that

written warning provides notice to the employee of the consequences of his

misconduct (WM=2.99), that grave offenses are punishable by dismissal or

removal from the service (WM=2.99), that in progressive discipline approach, oral

warning, written warning, suspension and dismissal are observed (WM=2.93),

that DepEd classifies offenses into grave, less grave and light grave offenses
 81

(WM=2.89), that light offenses are punishable by oral reprimand on the 1 st

offense, suspension on the 2 nd offense and dismissal for the 3 rd offense (2.79)

and that less grave offenses are punishable by six months suspension on 1st

offense and dismissal on the 2 nd offense (WM=2.73).

The seven (7) indicators obtained an overall weighted mean of 2.90. This

indicates that teachers are moderately aware about the penalties for disciplinary

action. The implication is that teachers are aware of the consequences of the

disciplinary action if ever they will be sanctioned or penalized.

The result is in congruence with the Department Order No. 49 issued by

Sunga (2006) which states that offenses are classified with corresponding

penalties into grave, less grave and light offenses. It means that teachers know

the corresponding penalties for the specific offenses that they may commit. The

result of this study also shows that teachers are moderately aware with what

Wright (2013) said that written warning provides notice to the employee of the

consequences for their misconduct. It denotes that they know what is meant to

receive a written warning and its consequence.

Further, it can be interpreted that when a teacher knows the

corresponding penalties for his/her unwanted behavior, there is a high tendency

of avoidance in committing such undesirable behavior because teacher is afraid

with the consequences of his misdeed. Disciplinary action, in the perception of

the employee or teacher is punishment for wrong doings and this can be one of

the reasons why they are afraid to any corrective measures coming from the

administrator or management.
 82

Table 14

Summary of Levels of Awareness among Teacher-Respondents

Toward Discipline Handling of DepEd

Overall
Discipline Handling of DepEd Weighted Interpretation
Mean
1.Grounds for disciplinary action 3.34 Fully Aware
2.Penalties for disciplinary 2.90 Moderately Aware
action
Grand Weighted Mean 3.12 Moderately
Aware

As revealed by Table 14, grounds for disciplinary action obtained higher

level of awareness among teacher-respondents. It obtained an overall weighted

mean of 3.34 and can be interpreted that teachers arefully aware about the

grounds for disciplinary action. On the other hand, penalties for disciplinary

action gained only an overall weighted mean of 2.90 which indicates that

teachers have moderate awareness about it. Moreover, a grand weighted mean

of 3.12 indicates that teacher-respondents are moderately aware about the

discipline handling of DepEd. As stated by Breed (2014), employees cannot be

discipline for misconduct committed by them if they are unaware and totally

oblivious to the fact that the misconduct committed by them is punishable. It is in

relation to the result that teacher-respondents are moderately aware with the

disciplinary action directed by DepED. It can be interpreted that teachers in the

public secondary school are aware that they are reliable for whatever misconduct

they may commit considering that they know the corresponding penalties and

grounds for disciplinary action.

 83

Table 15

Test of Significant Relationshipbetween Demographic Profiles of Teacher-Respondents

and Their Level of Awareness Toward DepEd Grievance Management Procedures
and Discipline Handling
Criterion Age Gender Length of Present Educational
Variables Test Service Rank Attainment
Pearson r 0.130 0.007 -0.024 0.031 0.064
Grounds for Computed t- 1.624 0.081 0.301 0.388 0.804
Grievance Value
Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant
Pearson r 0.128 -0.026 0.018 -0.022 0.019
Computed t- 1.599 0.300 0.388 0.276 0.239
Grievance Value
Procedures Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant
Pearson r -0.077 0.062 -0.080 -0.109 0.047
Computed t- 0.962 0.715 1.002 1.366 0.591
Grievance Value
committee Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant
Pearson r 0.018 0.015 -0.013 -0.071 0.162
Computed t- 0.225 0.173 0.163 0.890 2.036
Grievance Value
committees’ Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
jurisdiction Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not
Significant Significant
Pearson r -0.120 -0.030 -0.156 -0.151 0.034
Computed t- 1.499 0.346 1.955 1.892 0.427
Grievance Value
committees’ Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
responsibilities Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant
Pearson r 0.189 0.176 0.083 -0.009 0.028
Computed t- 2.360 2.029 1.040 0.113 0.352
Grounds for Value
Disciplinary Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
actions Remarks Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant Significant
Pearson r 0.064 -0.011 -0.013 0.018 -0.081
Computed t- 0.799 0.127 0.163 0.226 1.018
Penalties for Value
disciplinary Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
actions Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant
Pearson r 0.010 0.010 -0.072 -0.086 0.077
Computed t- 0.125 0.115 0.902 1.078 0.968
Grievance Value
Management Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
Procedures Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant
Pearson r 0.152 0.107 0.047 0.003 -0.021
Computed t- 1.898 1.234 0.589 0.038 0.264
Discipline Value
Handling Critical t-Value 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970 1.970
Remarks Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Not
Significant Significant
Legend: 0.00 - ± 0.20 very low correlation tested at 0.05 level of significance
±0.21 - ± 0.40 low correlation degrees of freedom vary from 133 to 158
±0.41 - ± 0.70 substantial or marked correlation critical t-value is 1.970
±0.71 - ± 0.99 very high correlation
± 1 perfect correlation
 84

Table 15 shows the test of significant relationship between teacher-

respondents’ demographic profiles and their level of awareness toward DepEd

grievance management procedures and discipline handling. The t-test was

applied in testing the significance of the correlation at 0.05 level of significance

and degrees of freedom vary from 133 to 158.

As revealed, teachers’ level of awareness on grievance committees’

jurisdiction and their educational attainment posted a very low positive and

significant correlation. This obtained a Pearson R-value of 0.162 indicating that

the higher educational attainment a teacher has, the higher is his/her level of

awareness on grievance committees’ jurisdiction. This implies that educational

attainment of teachers is a predictor of their level of awareness on grievance

committees’ jurisdiction. It can be inferred that a teacher who is a masters’

degree holder has higher level of awareness on grievance committees’

jurisdiction than a teacher who has no masters’ degree.

It is very important that a leader or a head teacher knows how to deal with

his/her people. Familiarizing himself/herself with the rules and regulations

pertaining to misdeed or misconduct of the teacher is a need. Through this study,

the researcher found out that the higher educational attainment of a teacher, the

higher his/her awareness toward the composition of grievance committee. This

can be attributed to the lessons they have in their graduate studies. Their high

level of cognizance about the composition of each grievance committee can be

derived from peer discussions, from inputs of the professors and from teachers’

professional readings.
 85

Furthermore, both age and gender showed a very low positive and

significant correlation with teachers’ level of awareness on grounds for

disciplinary action. This gained Pearson R-values of 0.189 and 0.176

respectively. For age, the significant correlation indicates that the older the

teacher is, the higher is his/her level of awareness on grounds for disciplinary

actions. Similarly, the younger the teacher is, the lower is his/her level of

awareness on grounds of disciplinary actions. Thus, age is a predictor of level of

awareness on grounds for disciplinary actions.

This high level of awareness among older teachers can be attributed to

their vast experience. This result agreed with Pushpakumari (2008) and Berube

(2010) who stated that older employees are more satisfied with their work than

the younger employees. It means that older employees are contented and

informed about all aspects of their job particularly in terms of rules and regulation

of an institution like the grounds for disciplinary action. The years of their stay on

the job or in the institution allow them to be familiarized with the scenarios or

instances which typically occur particularly on the grounds for disciplinary action.

In the same way,Mahnaz et al (2013)found that among the demographic

factors, age is one of the significant predictors of obedience and loyalty of an

employee. As people aged, their perception changes, widens level of

understanding on the occurrence of instances and learns a lot on how to behave

toward other people. Older people learn lot of things in life particularly in human

relation compare to the young one.

 86

For gender, significant relationship indicates that male teachers tend to

have higher level of awareness on grounds for disciplinary action than female

teachers. This implies that male teachers are more aware about grounds for

disciplinary actions than female teachers do. Results agreed with what Aristotle

said that men in nature are good leaders and obedient followers of authority. It

means that men are naturally born with innate leadership skills who value rules

and regulations of an institution. The result of the present study is also in favor

with what Johnson (2005) found out on his study. His findings revealed that male

are stronger supporters of existing progressive disciplinary policies than their

female counterparts. Moreover, Sarfaty, et. al. (2007) proved on his study that

male faculty valued negotiation in academic career compared to female. Thus,

the results proved that male public secondary school teachers possess a high

level of awareness in terms of grounds for disciplinary action and can be

concluded that gender is a predictor of teachers’ level of awareness on grounds

for disciplinary actions. These are the only correlations that are significant as

shown by the results of the test.

The rest of demographic profiles showed very low positive /negative and

insignificant correlation with the areas of grievance management procedures and

discipline handling. This can be verified by the results of the overall test of

significant relationship. The teachers’ level of awareness on DepEd grievance

management procedures and their demographic profiles showed a very low and

insignificant correlations. This indicates that teachers’ level of awareness on

DepEd’s grievance management procedures is not affected by their demographic

 87

profile which include their age, gender, length of service, present rank and

educational attainment. It can be restated that demographic profile is not

predictors of teachers’ level of awareness on DepEd’s grievance management

procedures. Hence, it can be concluded that there is no significant relationship

between teachers’ demographic profile and their level of awareness on DepEd’s

grievance management procedures. Therefore, the hypothesis which stated

“There is significant relationship on the respondent level of awareness toward

DepEd Grievance Management and Discipline Handling when they are group

according to demographic profile” is rejected.

Also, the teachers’ level of awareness on discipline handling and their

demographic profiles revealed a very low and insignificant correlation. This

means that teachers’ level of awareness on discipline handling is independent of

their age, gender, length in service, present rank and educational attainment.

Thus, there is no significant relationship between the demographic profile of the

teachers and their level of awareness on discipline handling. Thus, the

hypothesis which states that “There is a significant relationship on the

respondent level of awareness toward DepEd Grievance Management and

Discipline Handling when they are group according to demographic profile” is

rejected.

The result of the test only suggests that demographic profile of teachers

are not predictors of their level of awareness toward DepEd Grievance

Management Procedures and Discipline Handling. The result is aligned with what

Tillman (2008) claimed that the length of service of a teacher is not positively
 88

correlated with job satisfaction in which obedience of the existing policies are part

of it. It means that the number of years of teaching is not a barometer of

awareness of teacher in a particular policy or regulation. In terms of present rank

or designation of the teacher, the result of the present study agreed with the

result of Eyupoglu and Sane (2009) study where they unproved that present rank

or designation was a reliable predictor of job effectiveness.

It can be interpreted that age, gender, length of service, rank or position

and educational attainment of a teacher have nothing to do with their level of

awareness toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline

Handling. It meansthat whether teachersare young or old, male or female,

render service for a long time, holding lowest or highest position and even he/she

got doctorate degree, their level of awareness may vary.

Teachers work with different environment, surrounded with diverse people

who possessed different perceptions; thus, they may have different interpretation

toward rules and regulations mandated by an institution. This may be one

reason why teachers’ level of awareness is not affected by their demographic

profile.
 89

Table 16

Test of Significant Difference [One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in the Levels of Awareness
among Teacher-Respondents toward DepEd Grievance Management Procedures
and Discipline Handling

Source of Sum of Df Mean Comput Critical Level of Remar

Variations Squares Squa ed F- F- Signific ks
re Value Value ance

Between 67.269 3 22.42

Grounds groups 3
for Within groups 4471.075 156 0.782 2.600 0.05 Not
grievanc 28.66 Signific
e Total 4538.344 159 1 ant
Between 100.119 3 33.37
Grievanc groups 3
e Within groups 3629.875 156 23.26 1.434 2.600 0.05 Not
procedur 8 Signific
es Total 3729.994 159 ant
Between 244.025 3 81.34
groups 2
Grievanc Within groups 6137.750 156 2.067 2.600 0.05 Not
e 39.34 Signific
committe Total 6381.775 159 5 ant
e
Grievanc Between 99.475 3 33.15
e groups 8
committe Within groups 2767.500 156 1.869 2.600 0.05 Not
es’ 17.74 Signific
jurisdictio Total 2866.975 159 0 ant
n
Between 34.100 3 11.36
Grievanc groups 7
e Within groups 5219.400 156 0.340 2.600 0.05 Not
committe 33.15 Signific
es’ Total 5253.500 159 8 ant
Responsi
bilities
Between 78.819 3 26.27
Grounds groups 3
for Within groups 5380.025 156 0.762 2.600 0.05 Not
disciplina 34.48 Signific
ry action Total 5458.844 159 7 ant
Between 163.625 3 54.54
Penalties groups 2
for Within groups 2979.150 156 2.856 2.600 0.05 Signific
disciplina 19.09 ant
ry action Total 3142.775 159 7

Presented in Table 16 is the test of significant difference in the levels of

awareness among teacher-respondents from different public secondary schools

 90

toward DepEd Grievance Management Procedures and Discipline Handling. The

significant difference is tested at 0.05 level of significance.

The table shows that there is no significant difference in the levels of

awareness among teacher-respondents from different public secondary schools

in grounds for grievance, grievance procedures, grievance committee, grievance

committees’ jurisdiction, grievance committees’ responsibilities and grounds for

disciplinary action. Thus, thehypothesis which stated “There is a significant

difference in the level of awareness of public secondary school teachers toward

DepEd Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling when they

are grouped according to school is rejected. This implies that among these

areas, teacher-respondents posted same levels of awareness or they have the

same perceptions.

The way how an appointee and responsible officials disseminate

information about grievance management procedure and discipline handling is

not intensive. School-related issues like grievances and discipline handling do

not occur every day or every week in the school; thus, officials and staff do not

extend too much effort in mandating the said DepEd Order. Teachers, who play

the main proponent of this issue, are not well-informed about grievance

management procedure and discipline handling because they don’t feel the need

to engage themselves with it. This only means that compared to other school

related issues, dissemination of information on issues about grievances and

discipline handling is not the top priority of DepEd officials in the Second District,

Division of Quezon.
 91

It may be construed that interpreting particular rules and regulations may

vary based on the understanding and perceptions of an individual. Considering

that every teacher holds own set of beliefs which is different from one another,

specific rules and regulations of an institution may be viewed and interpreted

differently.

Development of Infographic Material

Analyzing the grand weighted mean of 2.72 and 3.12 on the level of

awareness of the teacher-respondents toward DepEd Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling of DepEd, it can be inferred that there is a

need for teachers to be oriented on the composition of the grievance committee

at each level, and that it is from the school level up to department level because

they are only “moderately aware” on these two concerns. Thus, an infographic

material has been developed to improve teachers’ awareness on the said

concern. Being teachers, they must be able to fully understand the ground that

may ruin their profession so that their work is protected and fulfilled. (See

Appendix)

Table 17

Acceptability of the Infographic Material on Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling in terms of Objectives
Objectives WM I

1. They are specific and clearly stated. 3.87 Highly

Accepted
2. They are consistent with research and updates 3.80 Highly
on DepEd Grievance Management Procedure Accepted
and Discipline Handling.
3. They are suitable to solve the observed and 3.73 Highly
identified problems. Accepted
Overall Weighted Mean 3.80 Highly
Accepted
 92

As shown in Table 17, Infographic Material on Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling in terms of objectives is highly acceptable

that objectives are specific and clearly stated (WM=3.87), that objectives are

consistent with research and updates on DepED Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling (WM=3.80) and that objectives are suitable to

solve the observed and identified problems (WM=3.73).

The three indicators obtained an overall weighed mean of 3.80 telling that

the Infographic Material on Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline

Handling in terms of objectives is highly accepted by the respondents.

Table 18
Acceptability of the Infographic Material on Grievance Management
Procedure and Discipline Handling in terms of Content

Content WM I
1. It is aligned with the objectives 3.73 Highly
Accepted
2. It highlights current need of the teachers in 3.80 Highly
enhancing their level of awareness toward Accepted
DepEd Grievance Management Procedure
and Discipline Handling
3. It presents informative, readable, 3.80 Highly
understandable and interesting data. Accepted
4. It creatively visualizes data and information 3.80 Highly
Accepted
Overall Weighted Mean 3.78 Highly
Accepted

As presented in Table 18, the respondents highly accepted that the

content of Infographic Material on Grievance Management Procedure and

Discipline Handling is aligned with the objectives (WM=3.73), highlights current

need of the teachers in enhancing their level of awareness toward DepED

 93

Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling (WM=3.80), presents

informative, readable, understandable, and interesting data (WM= 3.80) and

creatively visualizes data and information (WM=3.80). The four indicators

obtained an overall weighted mean of 3.78.

Since the content was selected based on the result of the level of awareness, the

researcher was able to develop the infographic material relevant to their needs.

Table 19
Acceptability of the Infographic Material on Grievance Management
Procedure and Discipline Handling in terms of Usefulness

Usefulness WM I
1. It provides sufficient information for the 3.67 Highly
attainment of objectives. Accepted
2. It is goal-directed with specified information 3.93 Highly
which was presented visually creative. Accepted
3. It gives long term benefits for the teachers and 3.80 Highly
administrators. Accepted
Overall Weighted Mean 3.80 Highly
Accepted

As presented in Table 19, Infographic Material on Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling in terms of usefulness is also highly

acceptable that it provides sufficient information for the attainment of objectives

(WM=3.67), that it is a goal-directed with specified information which was

presented visually creative (WM=3.93), and that it gives long term benefits for the

teachers and administrators (WM= 3.80). The three indicators obtained an overall

weighed mean of 3.80 which is interpreted as highly accepted. This means that

teachers strongly agreed that Infographic Material on Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling is a great help for them.

 94

Table 20
Acceptability of Infographic Material on Grievance Management
Procedure and Discipline Handling in terms of
Educational Significance

Educational Significance WM I
1. The objectives and content of the Infographics 3.73 Highly
are consistent with the national standards. Accepted
2. It promotes equity and equal access to 3.80 Highly
knowledge as reflected by the national Accepted
standards
3. It is of sufficient scope and importance to 3.93 Highly
make significant differences in the level of Accepted
awareness of teachers toward DepED
Grievance Management Procedure and
Discipline Handling.
4. It contributes to increase teacher’s level of 3.93 Highly
awareness toward DepED Grievance Accepted
Management Procedure and Discipline
Handling.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.84 Highly
Accepted

As presented in Table 20, Infographic Material on Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling in terms of usefulness was highly acceptable

that objectives and content of Infographics are consistent with the national

standards (WM=3.73), that it promotes equity and equal access to knowledge as

reflected by national standards (WM=3.80), that it is of sufficient scope and

importance to make significant differences in the level of awareness of teachers

toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling

(WM= 3.93), and that it contributes to increases teacher’s level of awareness

toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling

(WM= 3.93).
 95

Based on the overall weighted mean (WM=3.84), it was revealed that the

developed Infographic Material on Grievance Management Procedure and

Discipline Handling is highly acceptable in terms of educational significance.

Based on the result, it shows that an Infographic Material on Grievance

Management Procedure and Discipline Handling is highly accepted in all its

parameters.
 96

Chapter V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the findings, conclusions drawn and

recommendation of the study as a result of the previous chapter.

Summary

This study explored the level of awareness of public secondary school

teachers toward Grievance management procedure in relation to Discipline

handling in the Second District of Quezon as basis for developing Info-graphic

Materials on Grievance management procedure and Discipline handling. It

discussed the level of awareness of public secondary school teachers toward

Grievance management procedure in terms of: grounds for grievance, grievance

procedure, grievance committees, grievance committees’ jurisdiction, and

committees’ responsibilities and conferred the level of awareness of the public

secondary school teachers in the Discipline handling in terms of: grounds and

penalties for disciplinary action.

This descriptive study utilized self-made questionnaire as an instrument in

data gathering among respondents composed of 160 public secondary school

teachers from the Second District of Quezon. A self-made checklist questionnaire

utilizing 4 point Likert scale served as the research instrument in data gathering.

The instrument was piloted among the 15 non-participants from the public

secondary school in the Second District of Quezon. Statistical tools such as

weighted mean and One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were utilized to

compute the gathered data.

 97

Findings

Based on the data gathered, the following results were revealed:

1. The distribution of respondents according to age revealed the dominance

bracket of the 45-49 years old (141 or 65.63%). In terms of gender profile

of the respondents, the data revealed that 105 teacher-respondents are

female or 65.63% and implies that majority of the respondents are

females. Result also show that majority of the respondents have 10 years

at most in the service with 98 teacher-respondents or 61.25% of the

distribution which implies that majority of the respondents were in service

for almost 10 years. When it comes to present rank or designation,

majority of the teacher-respondents are Teacher I with 88 teacher-

respondents or 55%. More so, findings showed that in terms of highest

educational attainment, majority of the teacher-respondents have units

leading to Master’s Degree with 91 teacher-respondent or 56.87%.

2. As to the level of awareness of public secondary school teachers toward

DepEd grievance management procedure, it was revealed that the

teacher-respondents are moderately aware on grounds for grievance with

2.95 AWM, grievance procedure with 2.84 AWM, grievance committee

with 2.57 AWM, grievance committees’ jurisdiction with 2.65 AWM, and

grievance committees’ responsibilities with 2.65 AWM.

3. In terms of discipline handling, public secondary school teachers are fully

aware with the grounds for disciplinary action with 3.34 AWM. On the
 98

other hand, teacher-respondents are moderately aware about the

penalties for disciplinary action with 2.90 AWM.

4. The teachers’ level of awareness on discipline handling and their

demographic profiles revealed a very low and insignificant correlation.

This means that teachers’ level of awareness on discipline handling is

independent of their age, gender, length in service, present rank and

educational attainment.

5. In line with the level of awareness of teacher-respondents toward DepED

grievance management procedure and discipline handling when they are

grouped according to school, results revealed that there is no significant

difference in the levels of awareness among teacher-respondents from

different public secondary schools on grounds for grievance, grievance

procedures, grievance committee, grievance committees’ jurisdiction,

grievance committees’ responsibilities and grounds for disciplinary action.

On the other hand, there is a significant difference in the level of

awareness among teacher-respondents in penalties for disciplinary action.

6. An info-graphic material about DepEd grievance management procedure

and Discipline handling was developed.

7. The infographic material gained a highly acceptable remark in all its

parameter as revealed in the overall weighted mean of 3.80, Objectives

3.78, Content; 3.80, Usefulness; and 3.84, Educational Significance.

 99

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Majority of public secondary school teachers are female ages 45-49, has

rendered service to DepEd for almost 10 years, earned units leading to

Master’s Degree and currently holding a Teacher I designation/rank

2. Public secondary school teachers are moderately aware on the grounds

for grievances, grievance procedure, grievance committee, grievance

committees’ jurisdiction and grievance committees’ responsibilities. They

are knowledgeable about grievance management procedure as well as in

penalties for disciplinary action but they do not know every aspect of it.

3. Public secondary school teachers are fully aware with the grounds for

disciplinary action.

4. The demographic profiles of teachers are not indicator of teacher-

respondents level of awareness toward DepED grievance management

procedure and discipline handling.

5. The public secondary school teachers who are employed in the four big

schools in the Second District of Quezon have the same level of

awareness in terms of grounds for grievance, grievance procedures,

grievance committee, grievance committees’ jurisdiction, grievance

committees’ responsibilities and grounds for disciplinary action. But they

post different level of awareness in terms of penalties for disciplinary

action.
 100

6. The developed Infographic Material on DepEd Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling is ready for validation and initial try-out.

7. The developed Infographic Material is highly acceptable in terms of

objectives, content, usefulness, and educational significance.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are recommended.

1. To enhance public secondary school teachers’ level of awareness on

DepED grievance management procedure and Discipline handling,

grievance committees at all level may initiate collaborative information

drive campaign for the dissemination of essential information and in

propagation of mandated rules and regulations of an institution.

2. Public secondary school teachers, regardless of age, gender, length of

service, present rank or position and educational attainment, may exert

additional time and effort to preserve and/or uplift their awareness about

grievance management procedure and discipline handling of an institution

where they are employed. This may be done through readings and

familiarization with the memorandum and orders issued by DepEd.

3. It is also recommended that the Info-graphic Material on DepED

Grievance Management Procedure may be adapted by public secondary

schools in the Division of Quezon as a communicating tool in

disseminating relevant information about DepEd Grievance Management

Procedure and Discipline Handling.

 101

4. Utilization of Information Communication System may be commended for

use in the dissemination of information on Grievance management

procedure and discipline handling.

5. Future researches may replicate the findings of this study by selecting

larger sample and using mixed method approach which could give

affluent, more in-depth and well-substantiated conclusion.

 102

Bibliography

Alburo A. (2015). Employee discipline and termination of employment under

Philippine law, frequently asked questions.

Berube, N. (2010).Explaining the Relationship between Age, Job Satisfaction,

and Commitment: An Empirical Test, Concordia University, ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing
.
Blount J. (2012). People Follow You.

Breed, D. (2014). The Importance of Disciplinary Codes

http://www.barnardinc.co.za/articles/20-articles/129-the-importance-of-
disciplinary-codes.

Brown A. (2008). On hybrid political orders and emerging states: state formation
in the context of fragility.

Brown, H. & Robert, J. (2014). Gender Role Identity, Breadwinner Status

andPsychological Well-being in the Household.

Budd J. & Colvin, A. (2008). Improved Metrics for Workplace Dispute Resolution.
Procedures: Efficiency, Equity, and Voice A Journal of Economy and
Society http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-
232X.2008.00529.x/abstract.
Chungtai A & Zafar A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of organizational
commitment among pakistani university teachers. Applied HRM Research.

Cohen, S. (2015). Managing intractable conflicts in the Middle East and South
Asia https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2015/07/23/managing-
intractable-conflicts-in-the-middle-east-and-south-asia/.
Camgoz et., al (2016). Job Insecurity and Turnover Intentions: Gender
Differences and the Mediating Role of Work Engagement Journal of
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science HacettepeUniversity
Ankara Turkey.

Doyle, C. (2005). Building an Emotionally Intelligent Team,

http://blogs.managementconcepts.com/author/cdoyle/#WPM.

Eby M. (2005). Painless Management Improvement, 2nd Edition, New York:

State University Press, PP.55-79.

Eyupoglu, S. & Saner, T. (2009) Job Satisfaction: Does Rank Make a

Difference?
African Journal of Business Management Vol. 3
 103

Gatchalian, R. (2008). Employee Discipline and Dismissal; Basis, Law,

Jurisprudence and Best Practices, Central Book Supply.

Gardner W. (2013). The new teacher-old teacher debate

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2013/08/ne
w_teachers_better_at_increasing_learning.html.

Gomathi, S. (2014). A Study on Grievance Management in ImprovingEmployee

Performance in a PvtEnterprise Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy.

Gonzales M. (2015) .Attribute to K 12 Teachers: Direction Toward Enhancement

of Mathematics Teachers’ Competitive, Unpublished undergraduate
thesis, Laguna State Polytechnic University.

Groyberg B. (2013). Gender differences in leadership styles and the impact

within corporate board.

Groves, M. (2013). Exclusion of the Rules of Natural Justice

www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRU/2013/11.pdf.

Gupta, S. & Shukla K. (2011). A Critical Analysis on Employees’ Satisfaction on

Grievance Handling Mechanism, Volume 4, No. 2, pp. 251-266
International Journal of Transactions in Applied Sciences.

Habib, M. (2014). Employee Discipline and Grievance Handling

https://www.slideshare.net/aleemhabib7/employee-discipline-and-
grievance-handling.

Havighurst (2013).Havighurst Developmental Theory

https://www.psychologynotes.com.

Heale (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129.

Heathfield, S. (2016). Tips for Management Success You Can Become an

Effective Manager https://www.thebalance.com/tips-for-effective-
management-success-1916728.

Igloso G. (2016). Predictors of achievement and job satisfaction of women

managers TUP Manila, Philippines Vol. 4 No. 3.

Johnson M. (2005). A Survey of Progressive and Affirmative Employee

Discipline Systems in Floridas’Hospital Electronic Theses and
Dissertations University of Central Florida.
 104

Kelarijani J. et, al. (2014) .Evaluation of factors influencing patient satisfaction at

social security hospitals in Mazandaran Province, North Iran, Caspian J.
Intern Med.

Knight, X. &Ukpere, W. (2014). The Effectiveness and Consistency of

Disciplinary Actions and Procedures within aSouth African Organisation
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences.MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 4 March 2014.

Kottawatta, H. &Chanaka, C (2016). Causes of Employee Grievances in Small

Vs Large Scale Apparel Companies in SriLanka: Empirical Evidences
Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences Volume 6, Issue
5.

Kowalczyk (2015). Descriptive Research Design: Definition, Examples & Types

http://study.com/academy/lesson/descriptive-research-design.

Lucila, M. (2015). Level of Awareness of TNHS Administrators and Faculty on

the DepEd Grievance Policies and Procedures: Basis for the Formulation
of TNHS Institutional Grievance Policies and Procedures

McConnel, A. (2014). The Importance of Handling Grievances

Properlyhttp://www.personneltoday.com/hr/importance-handling-
grievancesproperly/.

Mahnaz et., al (2013). The Effect of Demographic Characteristics on

Organization Citizenship Behavior in the Selected Teaching Hospitals in
Tehron Vol. 7 African Journal of Business Management.

Mateo, A. (2008). Debate and Issue 101: Role of an

Adjudicatorhttp://parliamentarydebate.blogspot.com/2008/08/roleof-
adjudicator.html.

Melchades, V. (2013). The Role of Effective Grievance Management Procedures

in Enhancing Work Performance A Dissertation.

Mintah K. (2011). Industrial harmony at the workplace, 1st Edition, Ghana

Publishing Company.

Mubarak, G., Aziz, S. and Shariff, I. (2014). To Study the Cause of Teachers
Grievances in Secondary School, Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences Volume 25, Issue 8, pp. 1257-1266.

Murray, D. & Strauss (2007). Discipline by Parents and Child Psychology, 10 th

Edition, New York Wiley .
 105

Nifadkar R. &Dongre A (2014). To study the impact of job satisfaction and

demographic factors on organizational commitment among girls’ college,
Pune IndaRenuka Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences
Research (JBM&SSR) Volume 3, No. 1.

Olson Buchanan and Boswell (2008). An Integrative Model of Experiencing and

Responding to Mistreated at Work Journal of Academy of Management
Review.

Patel N., Rajderkar, Behere N. (2014). A Study of Certain Correlates of Job

Satisfaction among Judicial Personnel in a District of Western
Maharashtra Volume 8 page 68-74 .

Pushpakumari, D. (2008). The Influence of Leadership, Organizational Culture

and Individual Factor to Work Behaviour and Organization Performance of
National Bank in Bali, Dissertation, Airlangga University Surabaya.

Rachels D. (2014) .Conflict Management and Corporate Culture in the Extractive

Industries: A Stuy in Peru, Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility
Volume No. 50.

Ross, A. (2009). InfoGraphic Designs: Overview, Examples and Best Practices

June 7, 2009 http://www.instantshift.com/2009/06/07/infographic-designs-
overview-examples-and-best-practices/.

Salaria (2012). Meaning of the Term-Descriptive Survey Research Method

International Journal of Transformations in Business Management Vol.
No. 1, Issue No. 6.

Sante, T. (2013) Level of Awareness and Practices of the Contract Growers of

San Miguel Food Incorporated in Quezon Province
Unpublished Thesis, Southern Luzon State University

Sarker, S. (2014). The Relationship of Age and Length of Service with Job
Satisfaction: A Examination of Hotel Employees in Thailand.

Sarmiento, U. (2009). Education Law and the Private Schools: A Practical Guide
for Educational Leaders and Policy Makers, Central Books.

Schade (2015). Pilot Testing: Getting It Right (Before) the First Time
https://www.nngroup.comarticles/pilotesting.

Scheepers, J. (2016). Negligence' - A Ground for Disciplinary Action

http://www.labourguide.co.za/negligence.
 106

Skier & Associates March 21, 2014. The Importance of Establishing Proper
Jurisdiction in Family Law Cases.
https://www.alabamacriminalandfamilylawyerblog.com/2014/03/21/importa
nce-establishing-proper-jurisdiction-family-law-cases/

Sorenson, R. and Goldsmith, L. (2009). The Principals’ Guide to Managing

School Personnel 1st Edition, Corwin Press.

Sunga, F. (2006). Revised Rules of Procedures of the Department of Education

in Administrative Cases DepED Order No. 49, s. 2006 December 12,
2006.

Tatham (2005). At My Desk Australian, Journal of Career Development.

Tillman, J. (2008). A Study of Job Satisfaction among Teachers Journal of

Academy of Educational Leadership , p. 1.

Umali Z. (2010).Teachers’ Performance and the Related Factors of Different

Colleges at LSPU, Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis, Laguna State
Polytechnic College San Pablo City Campus.

Watson, T. (2014). Discipline Without Punishment: A Best Practices Approach to

Disciplining Employee https://www.watson-training.com/blog2/46-
discipline-with-punishment-a-best-practices-approach-to-disciplining-
employees.htm.

Wedaga S. (2012). Assessment of the effect of disciplinary procedures on

employee punctuality and performance at Anglogold Ashanti, Obuasi
Mine, Journal of Department of Managerial Sciences.

Wigne, C. (2012). Commercial Arbitration: Powers and Duties of Arbitrators in

Arbitral Proceedings, Journal of Reverse State University of Science and
Technology.

Wilson, S. (2016). Problem Employee, http://www.tirereview.com/156116.

Wright, M. (2013). How To Give a Written Warning to an Employee?

https://www.slideshare.net/mewesq/how-to-give-a-written-warning-to-an-
employee-with-form.
 107

A P P EN D I C E S
 108

Appendix A
Letter of Communication

Republic of the Philippines

Southern Luzon State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Lucban, Quezon

Dear Respondent:

Good Day!

The undersigned is a student of the Graduate School in the Southern Luzon

State University currently working on the research title “GRIEVANCE
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND DISCIPLINE HANDLING AWARENESS
AMONG PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS: AN INFOGRAPHIC
MATERIAL.”

In this regard, may I request for your valuable support by providing the relevant
data necessary in the completion of this undertaking? Your honest assessment
of the item in the questionnaire will contribute to the success of the study.

I am hoping that this request will merit your kind approval. Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

LECHELLE R. DE LOS REYES

Researcher

Noted by:

CONRADO L. ABRAHAM Ph. D

Research Adviser
 109

Republic of the Philippines

Southern Luzon State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Lucban, Quezon

LETTER TO THE PRINCIPAL

_________________________
_________________________
_________________________

Dear Madam/Sir:

The undersigned is a student of the Graduate School in the Southern Luzon

State University currently working on the research title “GRIEVANCE
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND DISCIPLINE HANDLING AWARENESS
AMONG PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS: AN INFOGRAPHIC
MATERIAL.”

In this regard, please permit the researcher to distribute her questionnaires for
teaching personnel from your institution, rest assured that all information
provided by the respondent will be held in strict confidence and will be utilized
exclusively for the purpose of the study.

I am hoping that this request will merit your kind approval. Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

LECHELLE R. DE LOS REYES

Researcher

Noted by:

CONRADO L. ABRAHAM Ph. D

Research Adviser
 110

Republic of the Philippines

Southern Luzon State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Lucban, Quezon

LETTER TO THE SCHOOL DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT

MERTHEL M. EVARDOME, CESO VI

School Division Superintendent
Division of Quezon
Pagbilao, Quezon

Dear Madam:

Greetings of peace!

The undersigned is a student of the Graduate School in the Southern

Luzon State University currently working on the research title “GRIEVANCE
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND DISCIPLINE HANDLING AWARENESS
AMONG PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS: AN INFOGRAPHIC
MATERIAL.”

In this connection, she is requesting for your permission to conduct her

study among public secondary school teachers at Second District of Quezon and
the approval on the distribution of questionnaires.

She is earnestly hoping for your favorable action on this request. Rest
assured that any information that will be gathered will be held in strictest
confidence and will use solely for the purpose of this study. Your preferential
attention and indulgence will merit this research.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

LECHELLE R. DE LOS REYES

Researcher
Noted by:
CONRADO L. ABRAHM Ph. D
Research Adviser
Approved:
MERTHEL M. EVARDOME, CESO VI
 111

School Division Superintendent

Appendix B
Questionnaire

Republic of the Philippines

Southern Luzon State University
Graduate School
Lucban, Quezon

Name (Optional) ______________________________________________

School: ______________________________________________

PART I – Demographic Profile of public secondary school teacher. Please

mark using “X” the appropriate choice.

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondent in terms of;

1.1 Age
20-24 years old 35–39 years old 50–54 years old
25–29 years old 40–44 years old 55-59 years old
30-34 years old 45–49 years old 60 and above
1.2 Gender
Male Female
1.3 Length of service in the DepEd
0-1 year 16-20 years
2-5 years 21-25 years
6-10 years 26 years and above
11-15 years
1.4 Present rank/designation
Teacher I Master Teacher III
Teacher II Head Teacher I
Teacher III Head Teacher II
Master Teacher I Head Teacher III
Master Teacher II Head Teacher IV
Others: _______________
(please specify)
1.5 Highest Educational Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree
with units leading to Master’s degree
 112

Master’s Degree
with units leading to Doctoral degree
Doctorate Degree

Part II. Grievance Management Procedure and Discipline Handling.

Please put a check mark (√) on the space provided for your answer. Use the
given scale below.

Point Score Descriptive Rating

4 - Fully Aware (FA)
3 - Moderately Aware (Mod. A)
2 - Merely Aware (Mer. A)
1 - Not Aware (NA)

No. GROUNDS FOR GRIEVANCE FA Mod. Mer. NA

Are you aware that grievance/s is derive A A
from teacher’s dissatisfaction in terms (4) (3) (2) (1)
of…
1. physical working condition?
2. proper handling of financial issues like
salaries and overtime pay?
3. proper handling of procedure on recruitment
and promotion?
4. proper handling of procedure in claiming
entitled benefits and incentives?
5. proper handling of procedure in termination
and retirement?
6. support of school head on professional
growth?
7. management approach of a school head?
8. sufficiency of school facilities?

No. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES FA Mod. Mer. NA

Are you aware that DepEd… A A
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1. grievance procedure hears complaints
successively by School Grievance up to
Department Grievance Committee?
2. grievance procedure allows DepEd
employees to freely settle their complaints?
3. grievance procedure is an effective tool in
resolving dispute and conflicts within the
school?
4. grievance procedure is a useful aid in
strengthening administrators’ decision-
 113

making skills?
5. grievance procedure employs procedural
due process of complaints?
6. disciplining authorities are responsible in
handling serious complain like sexual
harassment?
7. grievance committee may accept and hear
grievance/s presented orally or in written
form?
8. grievance committee at any level should
formulate their own grievance management
procedure?

No. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FA Mod. Mer. NA

Are you aware that… A A
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1. School Grievance Committee is composed of
Principal or Head Teacher, Faculty President &
Teacher?
2. District Grievance Committee is composed of
District Supervisor, Principal, and President of
the District Teachers Association?
3. Schools Division Grievance Committee is
composed of School Division Superintendent,
District Supervisor, and President of School
Division Teachers Association?
4. Regional Grievance Committee is composed of
Regional Director, Chief/Head of Administrative
Division, Two Division Chiefs, Two Members of
the Rank in File and Designated BilisAksyon
Partner?
5. Department Grievance Committee is composed
of Highest Official, Two Division Chiefs, Two
Members of the Rank and File, and Designated
BilisAksyon Partner?
6. Department, Regional, Division, District, and
School grievance committee should observe
sincerity and credibility at all times?
7. Department, Regional, Division, District, and
School committees should create their own
appropriate and relevant rules of procedures in
solving grievance/s?
 114

8. Department, Regional, Division, District, School

committees’ decision should be rendered within
15 days?
9. there will be a separate committee in the
central, regional, division, district, and school
offices?

No. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES’ JURISDICTION FA Mod. Mer. NA

Are you aware that… A A
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1. School Grievance Committee has jurisdiction
over grievances of teachers and non-teaching
personnel in the school?
2. District Grievance Committee has jurisdiction
over grievances of employees in the district that
were not orally resolved?
3. Schools Division Grievance Committee
possesses original jurisdiction over grievances
of employee in the division that were not orally
resolved?
4. Regional Grievance Committee has original
jurisdiction over grievances of employee in the
region that were not orally resolved?
5. Department Grievance Committee has original
jurisdiction over grievances of employee in the
bureau and offices in the Central Office that
were not orally resolved?
6. solving grievant issues should be in hierarchical
processes?

No. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES’ FA Mod. Mer. NA

RESPONSIBILITIES A A
Are you aware that Grievance Committee is (4) (3) (2) (1)
responsible in…
1. establishing its own procedures and strategies?
2. developing pro-active activities to prevent
grievances?
3. implementing Employee Assembly, “Talakayan”,
and Counseling at least once every quarter?
3. conducting continuing information drive on the
Grievance Machinery?
4. conducting dialogue between and among the
parties involved?
 115

5. Issuing Final Certification on Final Action on the

Grievance?
6. preparing minutes of proceedings and activities?
7. directing documentation of grievance (like
signing of written agreements reached by the
parties involved)
8. submitting quarterly accomplishment report?
No. GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION FA Mod. Mer. NA
Are you aware that teachers should… A A
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1. understand and support legitimate policies of the
school?
2. poster honesty, fulfill duties at all times and obey
orders from authorities?
3. avoid frequent absenteeism and tardiness?
4. avoid habitual drunkenness?
4. refrain from falsification of official documents?
5. refrain from acting violently in the workplace
during official duty?
6. avoid stealing any of the school property?
7. refuse possessing or using alcoholic beverages
and illegal drugs in the school premises?
8. decline unauthorized solicitation at any means?

No. PENALTIES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION FA Mod. Mer. NA

Are you aware that… A A
(4) (3) (2) (1)
1.. DepED employs “progressive discipline
approach” in imposing discipline?
2. In “progressive discipline approach,” oral
warning, written warning, suspension, and
dismissal are observed?
3. written warning provides notice to the employee
of the consequences of his misconduct?
4. DepED classifies offenses into grave, less
grave, and light grave offenses?
5. grave offenses are punishable by dismissal or
removal from the service?
6. less grave offenses are punishable by six
months suspension on 1st offense and
dismissal on the 2 nd offense?
7. light offenses are punishable by oral reprimand
on the 1st offense, suspension on the 2 nd and
dismissal for the 3rd offense?
 116

Republic of the Philippines

Southern Luzon State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Lucban, Quezon
Name (Optional) ______________________________________________
School:(Optional) _____________________________
4 - Highly Acceptable 3 - Acceptable 2 – Fairly Acceptable 1 – Not
Acceptable
Objectives 4 3 2 1
4. They are specific and clearly stated
5. They are consistent with research and updates on
DepEd Grievance Management Procedure and
Discipline Handling
6. They are suitable to solve the observed and identified
problems.
Content
5. It is aligned with the objectives
6. It highlights current need of the teachers in enhancing
their level of awareness toward DepEd Grievance
Management Procedure and Discipline Handling
7. It presents informative, readable, understandable and
interesting data.
8. It creatively visualizes data and information
Usefulness
9. It provides sufficient information for the attainment of
objectives.
10. It is goal-directed with specified information which was
presented visually creative.
11. It gives long term benefits for the teachers and
administrators.
Educational Significance
12. The objectives and content of the Infographics are
consistent with the national standards.
13. It promotes equity and equal access to knowledge as
reflected by the national standards
14. It is of sufficient scope and importance to make
significant differences in the level of awareness of
teachers toward DepED Grievance Management
Procedure and Discipline Handling.
15. It contributes to increase teacher’s level of awareness
toward DepED Grievance Management Procedure and
Discipline Handling.