IVAN A. BOLANOS, APPELLANT,

v.

WORKFORCE ALLIANCE AND AM-COMP/PINNACLE AND ARBOR EDUCATION & TRAINING/RESCARE AND SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, APPELLEES

WETHERELL, J.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in dismissing his petition for benefits on the ground *172that Appellees were not his “employer.” For the following reasons, we affirm.

On July 26, 2006, Claimant went to the Workforce Alliance Career Center (the Center) for help in finding a job. The Center was operated by Workforce Alliance (Workforce), a non-profit organization created pursuant to the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Arbor Education & Training/Rescare (Arbor) was the direct service provider responsible for administering the job assistance services provided at the Center. The Center is federally funded; there are no fees charged to the employees and employers that use its services.

Claimant, who had 12 years of prior experience as a tree-trimmer, spoke to “a lady” at the Center who told him, “I have a job for you.” The lady called a phone number and spoke to someone identified in the record only as “Lewis.” Claimant then spoke with Lewis and agreed to meet him at a local gas station later that day. Claimant met with Lewis at the gas station and discussed a tree-trimming job for which Lewis was to pay him $16.00 per hour. Claimant started working for Lewis that same day, and after about four hours on the job, Claimant was injured when he fell from a tree that he was trimming.

Claimant concedes that he does not have a traditional employer/employee relationship with either Workforce or Arbor. Instead, he argues that section 440.02(16)(a) defines “employer” to include “employment agencies, employee leasing companies, and similar agents who provide employees to other persons,” and that Ap-pellees are his “employer” because they are “similar agents” under the statute.

The language Claimant relies on was added to the statute in 2003. See Ch. 2003^112, § 2, at 3871, Laws of Fla. It has not been construed; thus, this case presents an issue of first impression. Review of the JCC’s interpretation of this statute is de novo. See Lombardi v. S. Wine & Spirits, 890 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Chapter 440 does not define “similar agents,” but its meaning can be gleaned from the terms that precede it — “employment agency” and “employee leasing company” — under the statutory construction doctrines of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis. Thus, to determine whether Workforce and Arbor are “similar agents,” we first must interpret the terms “employment agency” and “employee leasing company.”

Chapter 440 does not define “employment agency” or “employee leasing company.” Absent a statutory definition,1 it is *173appropriate to resort to dictionaries to interpret these terms in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings. See Morris v. C.A. Meyer Paving & Constr., 516 So.2d 302, 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (adopting dictionary definitions of “amputation” where term not defined in statute).

Webster’s Dictionary defines “employment agency” as “an agency whose business it is to find jobs for those seeking them or people to fill jobs that are open.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 743 (1967), available at www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/employment% 20agency. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “employment agency” as a “[bjusiness that procures, for a fee, employment for others and employees for employers. Whether the employer or the employee pays the fee depends on the terms of the agreement.” Black’s Law Dictionary 525 (8th ed. 1999). These definitions contemplate a financial arrangement between either the agency and the employer or the agency and the employee.

We have been unable to find a dictionary definition of “employee leasing company.” However, employee leasing companies are regulated in sections 468.520-.535, Florida Statutes, which define such a company as being “engaged in” an arrangement “whereby a leasing company assigns its employees to a client and allocates the direction of and control over the leased employees between the leasing company and the client.” §§ 468.520(4), (5), Fla. Stat. (2006) (emphasis added). This definition contemplates the assignment of the company’s own employees to another employer.

It follows from these definitions that the key features needed to be a “similar agent” under section 440.02(16)(a) include a financial arrangement between the agency and either the end employer/client or the employee, as seen in employment agencies, or the use of the entity’s own employees by the end employer/client, as seen in employee leasing companies. Here, neither Workforce nor Arbor has the requisite features to be considered a “similar agent.”

First, it is undisputed that neither Workforce nor Arbor is paid by the people for whom it helps to find jobs or the entities with which they place jobseekers. Second, it is undisputed that Claimant was not an employee of either Workforce or Arbor in that he was not paid by either entity, and neither Workforce nor Arbor had any control over the terms and conditions of the ultimate employment relationship between the Claimant and Lewis, nor did they receive any direct benefits from the work that Claimant was doing for Lewis.

Claimant argues that “similar agent” should include any labor exchange program that plays a role in matching employers and employees. However, this broad conception would likely impose workers’ compensation Lability on organizations that oversee job fairs, universities that assist businesses with on-campus interviews, and public websites that provide access to job postings. Surely this was not the legislature’s intent.2 See Pearson v. *174 Paradise Ford, 951 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (refusing to interpret a provision of chapter 440 in a manner that would lead to an absurd result not intended by the legislature).

For these reasons, we affirm the JCC’s order.

AFFIRMED.

HAWKES, C.J., and WOLF, J., concur.