¶1Opinion by
¶2In this unemployment compensation appeal, claimant
¶3Having worked as a packer for his employer
¶4Claimant contends that the employer failed to meet the burden of proving willful misconduct, and that the alleged actions did not warrant a finding of willful misconduct as a matter of law.
¶5*509There is substantial evidence in the record of testimony to support the findings, made by the referee and adopted by the board, that claimant missed work several times after receiving a warning from his employer that continued absenteeism would be cause for dismissal. Therefore, we cannot disturb those findings. Edwards v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 556, 414 A.2d 1124 (1980).
¶6We have held that continued excessive absence or lateness in the face of warnings by the employer constitutes willful misconduct within the meaning of Section 402(e). Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 629, 411 A.2d 899(1980); Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 526, 300 A.2d 299 (1973). Claimant’s behavior here evidences a willful disregard of the employer’s interests and of his own duties and obligations.
¶7Accordingly, we affirm the denial of compensation.
¶8Okder
¶9And Now, this 13th day of November, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-173843, dated July 11,1979, is affirmed.
¶10 Henry Allen.
¶11 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
¶12 Section 402(e) of tbe Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897 as amended, 43P.S. §802(e).
¶13 Slim Jim.