Working time is a constantly discussed topic. In Sweden working time is largely controlled by collective agreements. About 90% of all workers are covered by a collective agreement. For those who are parts of a collective agreement, it is important to consider the regulations in both the Swedish Arbetstidslagen (ATL) and the Working Time Directive (the Directive) when making a collective agreement. The purpose of this thesis is to examine various aspects of working time regulation in the form of directives, law and collective agreements. The thesis intends to contribute to knowledge of how the regulations regarding working hours in Sweden meet the requirements of the Directive by the EU. Further, the purpose is to examine how deviations from ATL can be regulated by collective agreements. The legal dogmatic method has been used in combination with an EU legal method. Directive, law, preparatory acts, case law, doctrine and literature were studied to investigate the legal situation. Collective agreements have been used as a source of law as well as empirical material. When studying implementation of the Directive to Swedish law, certain contradictions can be identified. The Swedish model collides with the Directive and the Swedish legislators as well as the Labour court choose to safeguard the Swedish model. Another contradiction is the purpose of the directive, protection of worker's health and safety, it is important and the Court of Justice of EU returns to it in many cases. A counterpart is lacking in ATL, instead, a connection is made to AML. Furthermore, the definition of working time is an issue where differences can be noticed between the Directive and Swedish law. Interpretations of the Court of Justice of EU and ATL defines different interpretations of call time and a new case may affect the travel time. The Court of Justice of EU calls the member countries to have equivalent definitions of working time and it should originate from the Directive. Regarding deviations through collective agreements the study shows that there are difficulties to interpret 3 § ATL, which is giving contradictory instructions regarding deviations. The paragraph and the EU-lock puts a great responsibility on the parties of the labour market to be familiar with both the Swedish law and the Directive. Some regulations are better for workers in ATL than the Directive at first glance, but this can be settled by collective agreements. Practice shows that there may be errors in the preparation of collective agreements.