Disputes are prevalent, and negotiation is a daily business for construction practitioners. It is not uncommon to find that negotiating parties are behaving differently in their attempts to settle the differences. One party may actively propose offers and make reasonable concessions; however, the other may resort to aggressive strategies such as threatening to withdraw or taking legal action. Negotiating behaviors reflect the negotiators’ level of intention to settle (ITS). This study investigates why negotiators have varying levels of ITS with reference to the organizational justice theory. It is hypothesized that construction dispute negotiators having stronger perception of justice (i.e., procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) would raise their intention to settle. With data collected from construction practitioners in Hong Kong, the results of the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) supported this proposition. The findings of the study indicate that justice perception is a combined effect of the procedure to achieve a negotiated settlement and the final outcome. Furthermore, it is suggested that procedural justice is more influential than distributive and interactional justice. A fair procedure is thus essential to foster negotiating parties’ cooperative attitude. This study provides a systematic and nuanced deliberation of the multi-dimensional strengths of organizational justice in construction dispute management. A better understanding of these relationships can help uncover the settlement prospect of negotiation.